Re: 32 core net-next stack/netfilter "scaling"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I will give it a try and let folks know the results - unless told otherwise, I will ass-u-me I only need rerun the "full_iptables" test case.


The runemomniagg2.sh script is still running, but the initial cycles profile suggests that the main change is converting the write_lock time into spinlock contention time with 78.39% of the cycles spent in ia64_spinlock_contention. When the script completes I'll upload the profiles and the netperf results to the same base URL as in the basenote under "contrack01/"

The script completed - although at some point I hit an fd limit - I think I have an fd leak in netperf somewhere :( .

Anyhow, there are still some netperfs that end-up kicking the bucket during the run - I suspect starvation because where in the other configs (no iptables, and empty iptables) each netperf seems to consume about 50% of a CPU - stands to reason - 64 netperfs, 32 cores - in the "full" case I see many netperfs consuming 100% of a CPU. My gut is thinking that one or more netperf contexts gets stuck doing something on behalf of others. There is also ksoftirqd time for a few of those processes.

Anyhow, the spread on trans/s/netperf is now 600 to 500 or 6000, which does represent an improvement.

rick jones

PS - just to be certain that running-out of fd's didn't skew the results I'm rerunning the script with ulimit -n 10240 and will see if that changes the results any. And I suppose I need to go fd leak hunting in netperf omni code :(
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux