From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752749AbeEVUDM (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 16:03:12 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:37220 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752108AbeEVUDK (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 16:03:10 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqLCw08upgZin0KMKmTtQMcenZpXPQOGbiqX9rc0Ea1Sp76a3Zz/dyNAS9OBj9Qnk6dz27ZHlscVLB4pMtC4+0= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F646FBB-FE0B-4FEE-98E5-3CA2DF0598DE@oracle.com> References: <4F646FBB-FE0B-4FEE-98E5-3CA2DF0598DE@oracle.com> From: Alexander Duyck Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 13:03:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Regression: Approximate 34% performance hit in receive throughput over ixgbe seen due to build_skb patch To: William Kucharski Cc: LKML , Netdev , intel-wired-lan , Jeff Kirsher , "Duyck, Alexander H" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:29 PM, William Kucharski wrote: > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 12:23 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> >> 3. There should be a private flag that can be updated via "ethtool >> --set-priv-flags" called "legacy-rx" that you can enable that will >> roll back to the original that did the copy-break type approach for >> small packets and the headers of the frame. > > With legacy-rx enabled, most of the regression goes away, but it's still present > as compared to the code without the patch; the regression then drops to about 6%: > > # ethtool --show-priv-flags eno1 > Private flags for eno1: > legacy-rx: on > > Socket Message Elapsed Messages > Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput > bytes bytes secs # # 10^6bits/sec > > 65536 64 60.00 35934709 0 306.64 > 65536 60.00 33791739 288.35 > > Socket Message Elapsed Messages > Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput > bytes bytes secs # # 10^6bits/sec > > 65536 64 60.00 39254351 0 334.97 > 65536 60.00 36761069 313.69 > > Is this variance to be expected, or do you think modification of the > interrupt delay would achieve better results? > > > William Kucharski > I would think with modification of interrupt delay you could probably do much better if my assumption is correct and the issue is us sitting on packets for too long so we overrun the socket buffer and start dropping packets or stalling the Tx. Thanks. - Alex