From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: rm@romanrm.net Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 34d89081 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rin.romanrm.net (rin.romanrm.net [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:8b3b::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id b32d29d8 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:07:34 +0500 From: Roman Mamedov To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] WireGuard Snapshot `0.0.20180708` Available Message-ID: <20180711000734.5f358590@natsu> In-Reply-To: References: <20180710195436.357fb972@natsu> <20180710205729.645bc734@natsu> <20180710233722.31d6b060@natsu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:38:24 +0200 "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote: > I might not be understanding you correctly. Do you mean to suggest > that removing simd_relax() actually harms performance now? That having > it in there helps performance? Actually no, after your message I swapped kernels again to recheck, and nope, now the one with simd_relax removed appears faster a bit as it should be (by about 5%). Perhaps it was something else, maybe my test bench is not ideal: both "dual-core" VMs run on the same 8-core FX-8350, which has some of its cores coupled to share resources, so at the scheduler's whim VMs can probably affect each other. (Will try further tests with affinity pinning). -- With respect, Roman