On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 11:47 +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 11:46 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Today, I ran the same test on other servers, it looks the same as
> above. Those results fluctuate within ~2%.
>
> Oh, one more thing I forgot to say is the output of iperf itself which
> doesn't show any difference.
> Before: Bitrate is 211 - 212 Mbits/sec
> After: Bitrate is 211 - 212 Mbits/sec
> So this result is relatively constant especially if we keep running
> the test over 2 minutes.
Thanks for the testing. My personal take on this one is that is more a
refactor than a bug fix - as the amount forward allocated memory should
always be negligible for UDP.
Still it could make sense keep the accounting schema consistent across
different protocols. I suggest to repost for net-next, when it will re-
open, additionally introducing __sk_mem_schedule() usage to avoid code
duplication.
Thanks,
Paolo
