From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: vethpair creation performance, 3.14 versus 4.2.0
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:48:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E4AF74.7030107@hp.com> (raw)
On 08/29/2015 10:59 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Please note that similar overhead was also reported while creating
> veth pairs https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/19/556
That got me curious, so I took the veth pair creation script from there,
and started running it out to 10K pairs, comparing a 3.14.44 kernel with
a 4.2.0-rc4+ from net-next and then net-next after pulling to get the
snmp stat aggregation perf change (4.2.0-rc8+).
Indeed, the 4.2.0-rc8+ kernel with the change was faster than the
4.2.0-rc4+ kernel without it, but both were slower than the 3.14.44 kernel.
I've put a spreadsheet with the results at:
ftp://ftp.netperf.org/vethpair/vethpair_compare.ods
A perf top for the 4.20-rc8+ kernel from the net-next tree looks like
this out around 10K pairs:
PerfTop: 11155 irqs/sec kernel:94.2% exact: 0.0% [4000Hz
cycles], (all, 32 CPUs)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23.44% [kernel] [k] vsscanf
7.32% [kernel] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.4
5.63% [kernel] [k] __memcpy
5.27% [kernel] [k] __dev_alloc_name
3.46% [kernel] [k] format_decode
3.44% [kernel] [k] vsnprintf
3.16% [kernel] [k] acpi_os_write_port
2.71% [kernel] [k] number.isra.13
1.50% [kernel] [k] strncmp
1.21% [kernel] [k] _parse_integer
0.93% [kernel] [k] filemap_map_pages
0.82% [kernel] [k] put_dec_trunc8
0.82% [kernel] [k] unmap_single_vma
0.78% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
0.71% [kernel] [k] menu_select
0.65% [kernel] [k] clear_page
0.64% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
0.62% [kernel] [k] page_fault
0.60% [kernel] [k] find_busiest_group
0.53% [kernel] [k] snprintf
0.52% [kernel] [k] int_sqrt
0.46% [kernel] [k] simple_strtoull
0.44% [kernel] [k] page_remove_rmap
My attempts to get a call-graph have been met with very limited success.
Even though I've installed the dbg package from "make deb-pkg" the
symbol resolution doesn't seem to be working.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
next reply other threads:[~2015-08-31 19:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-31 19:48 Rick Jones [this message]
2015-08-31 21:29 ` vethpair creation performance, 3.14 versus 4.2.0 David Ahern
2015-08-31 21:31 ` Rick Jones
2015-08-31 23:04 ` Eric Dumazet
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=55E4AF74.7030107@hp.com \
--to=rick.jones2@hp.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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).