From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:47:17 -0300 Message-ID: <20120716204717.GA16137@oc1711230544.ibm.com> References: <1342458113-10384-1-git-send-email-cascardo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50044F1D.6000703@hp.com> <20120716190611.GA1023@oc1711230544.ibm.com> <50046EB1.5040909@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "yevgenyp@mellanox.co.il" , "ogerlitz@mellanox.com" , "amirv@mellanox.com" , "brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "klebers@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "anton@samba.org" To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from e24smtp01.br.ibm.com ([32.104.18.85]:57677 "EHLO e24smtp01.br.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752799Ab2GPUr2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:47:28 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:47:26 -0300 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (d24relay01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.16]) by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF401DC004B for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (d24av04.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.97]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q6GKi2Tq2523162 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:44:02 -0300 Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av04.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q6GIlAda015812 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:47:11 -0300 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50046EB1.5040909@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:42:41PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > On 07/16/2012 12:06 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > > > >>What is the effect on packet-per-second performance? (eg aggregate, > >>burst-mode netperf TCP_RR with TCP_NODELAY set or perhaps UDP_RR) > >> > >I used uperf with TCP_NODELAY and 16 threads sending from another > >machine 64000-sized writes for 60 seconds. > > > >I get 5898op/s (3.02Gb/s) without the patch against 18022ops/s > >(9.23Gb/s) with the patch. > > I was thinking more along the lines of an additional comparison, > explicitly using netperf TCP_RR or something like it, not just the > packets per second from a bulk transfer test. > > rick > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > I used a uperf profile that is similar to TCP_RR. It writes, then reads some bytes. I kept the TCP_NODELAY flag. Without the patch, I saw the following: packet size ops/s Gb/s 1 337024 0.0027 90 276620 0.199 900 190455 1.37 4000 68863 2.20 9000 45638 3.29 60000 9409 4.52 With the patch: packet size ops/s Gb/s 1 451738 0.0036 90 345682 0.248 900 272258 1.96 4000 127055 4.07 9000 106614 7.68 60000 30671 14.72 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (e24smtp05.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e24smtp05.br.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0465E2C0191 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:47:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp05.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:47:26 -0300 Received: from d24relay03.br.ibm.com (d24relay03.br.ibm.com [9.13.184.25]) by d24dlp01.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7BE352004B for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (d24av04.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.97]) by d24relay03.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q6GKkbiL24510590 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:46:38 -0300 Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av04.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q6GIlAdS015812 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:47:10 -0300 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:47:17 -0300 From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo To: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput Message-ID: <20120716204717.GA16137@oc1711230544.ibm.com> References: <1342458113-10384-1-git-send-email-cascardo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50044F1D.6000703@hp.com> <20120716190611.GA1023@oc1711230544.ibm.com> <50046EB1.5040909@hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <50046EB1.5040909@hp.com> Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "amirv@mellanox.com" , "yevgenyp@mellanox.co.il" , "klebers@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "anton@samba.org" , "brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "ogerlitz@mellanox.com" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:42:41PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > On 07/16/2012 12:06 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > > > >>What is the effect on packet-per-second performance? (eg aggregate, > >>burst-mode netperf TCP_RR with TCP_NODELAY set or perhaps UDP_RR) > >> > >I used uperf with TCP_NODELAY and 16 threads sending from another > >machine 64000-sized writes for 60 seconds. > > > >I get 5898op/s (3.02Gb/s) without the patch against 18022ops/s > >(9.23Gb/s) with the patch. > > I was thinking more along the lines of an additional comparison, > explicitly using netperf TCP_RR or something like it, not just the > packets per second from a bulk transfer test. > > rick > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > I used a uperf profile that is similar to TCP_RR. It writes, then reads some bytes. I kept the TCP_NODELAY flag. Without the patch, I saw the following: packet size ops/s Gb/s 1 337024 0.0027 90 276620 0.199 900 190455 1.37 4000 68863 2.20 9000 45638 3.29 60000 9409 4.52 With the patch: packet size ops/s Gb/s 1 451738 0.0036 90 345682 0.248 900 272258 1.96 4000 127055 4.07 9000 106614 7.68 60000 30671 14.72