On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:56 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > yes, I was thinking about it actually. > I run some preliminary tests to check if we are introducing any performance > penalties or so. > My setup relies on a couple of veth pairs and an eBPF program to perform > XDP_REDIRECT from one pair to another one. I am running the program in xdp > driver mode (not generic one). > > v00 (NS:ns0 - 192.168.0.1/24) <---> (NS:ns1 - 192.168.0.2/24) v01 v10 (NS:ns1 - 192.168.1.1/24) <---> (NS:ns2 - 192.168.1.2/24) v11 > > v00: iperf3 client > v11: iperf3 server > > I am run the test with different MTU valeus (1500B, 8KB, 64KB) > > net-next veth codebase: > ======================= > - MTU 1500: iperf3 ~ 4.37Gbps > - MTU 8000: iperf3 ~ 9.75Gbps > - MTU 64000: iperf3 ~ 11.24Gbps > > net-next veth codebase + page_frag_cache instead of page_pool: > ============================================================== > - MTU 1500: iperf3 ~ 4.99Gbps (+14%) > - MTU 8000: iperf3 ~ 8.5Gbps (-12%) > - MTU 64000: iperf3 ~ 11.9Gbps ( +6%) > > It seems there is no a clear win situation of using page_pool or > page_frag_cache. What do you think? Hm, interesting. Are the iperf processes running on different cores? May be worth pinning (both same and different) to make sure the cache effects are isolated.
