From: Imre Palik <imrep.amz@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, imrep@amazon.de
Cc: fw@strlen.de, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@amazon.com,
nbd@openwrt.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:34:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F982B5.90108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150226.113431.238255529591339000.davem@davemloft.net>
On 02/26/15 17:34, David Miller wrote:
> From: Imre Palik <imrep@amazon.de>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:19:25 +0100
>
>> If you are looking for peculiarities in my setup then here they are:
>> I am on 4k pages, and perf is not working :-(
>> (I am trying to fix those too, but that is far from being a low hanging fruit.)
>> So my guess would be that the packet pipeline doesn't fit in the cache/tlb
>
> Pure specualtion until you can actually use perf to measure these
> things.
>
> And I don't want to apply patches which were designed based upon
> pure speculation.
>
I did performance measurements in the following way:
Removed those pieces of the packet pipeline that I don't necessarily need one-by-one. Then measured their effect on small packet performance.
This was the only part that produced considerable effect.
The pure speculation was about why the effect is more than 15% increase in packet throughput, although the code path avoided contains way less code than 15% of the packet pipeline. It seems, Felix Fietkau profiled similar changes, and found my guess well founded.
Now could anybody explain me what else is wrong with my patch? I run out of ideas what to improve.
Thanks
Imre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-06 10:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-23 15:26 [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter Imre Palik
2015-02-23 16:06 ` Florian Westphal
2015-02-26 10:19 ` Imre Palik
2015-02-26 16:34 ` David Miller
2015-03-06 10:34 ` Imre Palik [this message]
2015-03-06 14:29 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2015-03-06 16:37 ` Florian Westphal
2018-03-09 15:31 ` David Woodhouse
2018-03-09 15:57 ` David Miller
2018-03-09 16:15 ` David Woodhouse
2018-03-09 16:26 ` Florian Westphal
2015-03-06 17:49 ` David Miller
2015-02-26 21:17 ` Felix Fietkau
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=54F982B5.90108@gmail.com \
--to=imrep.amz@gmail.com \
--cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=imrep@amazon.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nbd@openwrt.org \
--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).