On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:04:46PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 08:17:47PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 03:53:57PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > I'd suggest to run something like iperf on a fast hardware. And maybe some > > > io_uring stuff too. These are two places which were historically most sensitive > > > to the (kernel) memory accounting speed. > > > > I'm getting wildly inconsistent results with iperf. > > > > io_uring-echo-server and rust_echo_bench gets me: > > Benchmarking: 127.0.0.1:12345 > > 50 clients, running 512 bytes, 60 sec. > > > > Without alloc tagging: 120547 request/sec > > With: 116748 request/sec > > > > https://github.com/frevib/io_uring-echo-server > > https://github.com/haraldh/rust_echo_bench > > > > How's that look to you? Close enough? :) > > Yes, this looks good (a bit too good). Eh, I was hoping for better :) > I'm not that familiar with io_uring, Jens and Pavel should have a better idea > what and how to run (I know they've workarounded the kernel memory accounting > because of the performance in the past, this is why I suspect it might be an > issue here as well). > > This is a recent optimization on the networking side: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220825000506.239406-1-shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Maybe you can try to repeat this experiment. I'd be more interested in a synthetic benchmark, if you know of any.