On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:46 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
Thanks for your guidance.
Here're some numbers according to what you suggested, which I tested
several times.
----------|IFACE rxpck/s txpck/s rxkB/s txkB/s
Before: lo 411073.41 411073.41 36932.38 36932.38
After: lo 410308.73 410308.73 36863.81 36863.81
Above is one of many results which does not mean that the original
code absolutely outperforms.
The output is not that constant and stable, I think.
Please help me review those numbers.
>
> > 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.
Well, I see.
Thanks,
Jason
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paolo
>
