From: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
To: Chris Mi <chrism@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dsahern@gmail.com" <dsahern@gmail.com>,
"marcelo.leitner@gmail.com" <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"gerlitz.or@gmail.com" <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>,
"stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:31:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180108133150.GE14358@orbyte.nwl.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0501MB2143606CB34C5486C3632881AB130@VI1PR0501MB2143.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <VI1PR0501MB2143DEEBE30BA02E4ED129C0AB130@VI1PR0501MB2143.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Chris,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:03:53AM +0000, Chris Mi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:34:51PM +0900, Chris Mi wrote:
> > > The insertion rate is improved more than 10%.
> >
> > Did you measure the effect of increasing batch sizes?
> Yes. Even if we enlarge the batch size bigger than 10, there is no big improvement.
> I think that's because current kernel doesn't process the requests in parallel.
> If kernel processes the requests in parallel, I believe specifying a bigger batch size
> will get a better result.
But throughput doesn't regress at some point, right? I think that's the
critical aspect when considering an "unlimited" batch size.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:00:00AM +0000, Chris Mi wrote:
> After testing, I find that the message passed to kernel should not be too big.
> If it is bigger than about 64K, sendmsg returns -1, errno is 90 (EMSGSIZE).
> That is about 400 commands. So how about set batch size to 128 which is big enough?
If that's the easiest way, why not. At first, I thought one could maybe
send the collected messages in chunks of suitable size, but that's
probably not worth the effort.
Cheers, Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-08 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-04 7:34 [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode Chris Mi
2018-01-04 7:34 ` [patch iproute2 v6 1/3] lib/libnetlink: Add a function rtnl_talk_msg Chris Mi
2018-01-05 17:50 ` David Ahern
2018-01-09 6:44 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-04 7:34 ` [patch iproute2 v6 2/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode Chris Mi
2018-01-05 14:03 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-05 18:15 ` David Ahern
2018-01-05 19:14 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-09 6:45 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-04 7:34 ` [patch iproute2 v6 3/3] man: Add -bs option to tc manpage Chris Mi
2018-01-05 12:20 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-05 17:25 ` [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode Phil Sutter
2018-01-05 17:27 ` David Ahern
2018-01-05 18:45 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-08 2:03 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-08 4:00 ` David Ahern
2018-01-08 8:00 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-08 15:40 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-01-09 1:49 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-08 13:31 ` Phil Sutter [this message]
2018-01-09 1:21 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-09 2:35 ` Chris Mi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180108133150.GE14358@orbyte.nwl.cc \
--to=phil@nwl.cc \
--cc=chrism@mellanox.com \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=gerlitz.or@gmail.com \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).