Re: linux-next network throughput performance regression
From: Tom Herbert
Date: Mon Nov 09 2015 - 00:30:37 EST
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 11:24
>> > Thanks, David!
>> > I understand 1 TX queue is the bottleneck (however in Simon's
>> > test, TX=1 => 36.7Gb/s, TX=8 => 37.7 Gb/s, so it looks the TX=1 bottleneck
>> > is not so obvious).
>> > I'm just wondering how the bottleneck became much narrower with
>> > recent linux-next in Simon's result (36.7 Gb/s vs. 18.2 Gb/s). IMO there
>> > must be some latency somewhere.
>> I think the whole thing here is that you misinterpreted what Eric said.
>> He is not arguing that some regression did, or did not, happen.
>> He instead was making the basic statement about the fact that due to
>> the lack of paralellness a single stream TCP case is harder to
>> optimize for high speed NICs.
>> That is all.
> Thanks, I got it.
> I'm actually new to network performance tuning, trying to understand
> all the related details. :-)
You might want to look at
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/scaling.txt as an
introduction to the scaling capabilities of the stack.
> -- Dexuan
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/