On Tue, 2023-02-21 at 21:39 +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 8:27 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2023-02-21 at 19:03 +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Quoting from the commit 7c80b038d23e ("net: fix sk_wmem_schedule()
> > > and sk_rmem_schedule() errors"):
> > >
> > > "If sk->sk_forward_alloc is 150000, and we need to schedule 150001 bytes,
> > > we want to allocate 1 byte more (rounded up to one page),
> > > instead of 150001"
> >
> > I'm wondering if this would cause measurable (even small) performance
> > regression? Specifically under high packet rate, with BH and user-space
> > processing happening on different CPUs.
> >
> > Could you please provide the relevant performance figures?
>
> Sure, I've done some basic tests on my machine as below.
>
> Environment: 16 cpus, 60G memory
> Server: run "iperf3 -s -p [port]" command and start 500 processes.
> Client: run "iperf3 -u -c 127.0.0.1 -p [port]" command and start 500 processes.
Just for the records, with the above command each process will send
pkts at 1mbs - not very relevant performance wise.
Instead you could do:
taskset 0x2 iperf -s &
iperf -u -c 127.0.0.1 -b 0 -l 64
> In theory, I have no clue about why it could cause some regression?
> Maybe the memory allocation is not that enough compared to the
> original code?
As Eric noted, for UDP traffic, due to the expected average packet
size, sk_forward_alloc is touched quite frequently, both with and
without this patch, so there is little chance it will have any
performance impact.
Cheers,
Paolo
