On 10/9/24 9:43 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > Yep basically line rate, I get 97-98Gbps. I originally used a slower box > as the sender, but then you're capped on the non-zc sender being too > slow. The intel box does better, but it's still basically maxing out the > sender at this point. So yeah, with a faster (or more efficient sender), I am surprised by this comment. You should not see a Tx limited test (including CPU bound sender). Tx with ZC has been the easy option for a while now. > I have no doubts this will go much higher per thread, if the link bw was > there. When I looked at CPU usage for the receiver, the thread itself is > using ~30% CPU. And then there's some softirq/irq time outside of that, > but that should ammortize with higher bps rates too I'd expect. > > My nic does have 2 100G ports, so might warrant a bit more testing... > It would be good to see what the next bottleneck is for io_uring with ZC Rx path. My expectation is that a 200G link is a means to show you (ie., you will not hit 200G so cpu monitoring, perf-top, etc will show the limiter).
