From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Gospodarek Subject: Re: Blogpost evaluation this [PATCH v4 net-next RFC] net: Generic XDP Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:25:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20170425172549.GQ4730@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> References: <20170413.120925.2082322246776478766.davem@davemloft.net> <20170424162405.1183f2e7@redhat.com> <20170424.182643.485613135674690555.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: brouer@redhat.com, xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f193.google.com ([209.85.220.193]:34683 "EHLO mail-qk0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1951992AbdDYRZx (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:25:53 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f193.google.com with SMTP id u75so9722154qka.1 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170424.182643.485613135674690555.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 06:26:43PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:24:05 +0200 > > > I've done a very detailed evaluation of this patch, and I've created a > > blogpost like report here: > > > > https://prototype-kernel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/blogposts/xdp25_eval_generic_xdp_tx.html > > Thanks for doing this Jesper. Yes, this is excellent. I'm not all the way thru it, but I looked at the data and corroborate the results you are seeing. My results for both optimized and generic XDP for xdp_bench01_mem_access_cost --action XDP_DROP --readmem are quite similar to yours (11.7Mpps and 7.8Mpps, respectively for me 11.7Mpps and 8.4Mpps for you). I also noted (as you did) that there is no discernible difference running xdp_bench01_mem_access_cost with or without the --readmem option since the packet data is already being accessed that late it the stack. > > > I didn't evaluate the adjust_head part, so I hope Andy is still > > planning to validate that part? > > I was hoping he would post some results today as well. > > Andy, how goes it? :) Sorry for the delayed response. I was AFK yesterday, but based on testing from Friday and what I wrapped up today all looks good to me. On my system (i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz) the reported and actual TX throughput for xdp_tx_iptunnel is 4.6Mpps for the optimized XDP. For generic XDP the reported throughput of xdp_tx_iptunnel is 4.6Mpps but only ~880kpps actually on the wire. It seems to me that can be fixed with a follow-up for offending drivers or the stack if deemed that there is a real error there. > Once the basic patch is ready and integrated in we can try to do > xmit_more in generic XDP and see what that does for XDP_TX > performance. Agreed.