From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Naruto Nguyen <narutonguyen2018@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Significant capacity drop on loopback interface
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 07:58:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180510075840.12840865@xeon-e3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANpxKHFZPEOgE21oPM2WHF97jhD8w3-N-wdycSPEnOeMPwREsQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 10 May 2018 15:35:59 +0700
Naruto Nguyen <narutonguyen2018@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Recently, I used netperf to test the TCP performance on loopback
> interface on my 2 nodes, one is installed kernel 4.4.103 and the other
> is 3.12.61
>
> netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR
> netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR -- -D
>
> In both cases, I see that the throughput on 4.4.103 is about just 1/2
> in comparing with 3.12.61 node
>
> # netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR
> MIGRATED TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0
> AF_INET to localhost () port 0 AF_INET : first burst 0
> Local /Remote
> Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans.
> Send Recv Size Size Time Rate
> bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec
>
> 16384 87380 1 1 100.00 37714.68
> 16384 87380
>
>
> netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR
> MIGRATED TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0
> AF_INET to localhost () port 0 AF_INET : first burst 0
> Local /Remote
> Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans.
> Send Recv Size Size Time Rate
> bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec
>
> 16384 87380 1 1 100.00 64038.41
> 16384 87380
>
>
> When running tcpdump to capture all packets in loopback interface, I
> see that during 200s capture, the number of packets on loopback of
> 4.4.103 is double the number of packets in 3.12.61? Could you please
> let me know if it can cause the low throughput as above? Do we have
> any tuning for TCP on loopback to improve the performace (actually the
> low throughput also happens with UDP) or if we have any known
> performance issue in 4.4 kernel on loopback?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Brs,
> Naruto
This might just be the increased overhead of KPTI to fix Spectre/Meltdown.
Loopback is very sensitive to syscall overhead.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-10 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-10 8:35 Significant capacity drop on loopback interface Naruto Nguyen
2018-05-10 14:58 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
[not found] ` <CANpxKHFKqL+n596Liw7kzJpV3K+CqT9o+R9ynNoy+rPDwj1YNA@mail.gmail.com>
2018-05-10 15:18 ` Stephen Hemminger
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=20180510075840.12840865@xeon-e3 \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=narutonguyen2018@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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).