From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69E011865E2; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729068462; cv=none; b=krWmGOyOIitk4JLRLAQFy8kJzDqX+plepenBiMhCXmV5Cs8mThSfuOwZjAJ14mSPHNtVPEvAT6r7+I3o/HVsdOmactvrNoLXv2HWElFn74fsZQyv5s+DHCS94//6Y2ucBTt2R8Q4FOEgB10wz8JADWUoVPkr87nhqkZxJGPolh4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729068462; c=relaxed/simple; bh=82YI7Z52AFsteD5PsTQd98UUo48eHMHj25ilOXMJ9lI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=atPMb0addIMPRX7v44RABznmw5mFANEMyPRnA0mBKxt4Pu1Q6xoW3IIu+v+jO7AWkATj+eJCVg0Loonh2CWY2pq39Mwu9N5HDBbAx3d4fn0wRxMwAuAyVAVo1iXKQtPo00pfbdscdCmb1imZ4FLVqXbMdwG5UIV00Fs7dJmvI4E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=svm83vBC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="svm83vBC" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1729068456; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=vqPkEBMNc4XMmyNn8kfg23RI9ATLDy2sfoPdlwSx/js=; b=svm83vBCjJ0D8PaC6yXtZYu4GqLYHYl5a1QeY55rlqfXHk+ArSkfyQYS45o1WNWbLqQ7EoOt+CTXGmFR5ujTGB8g8ZRC2XTbt5SbduubepHdbYCs5FiL5v6AeF4k6zq8SU63MKdwp64LLU2Gv7mXiXByts1RGx5oVouLQgw6m0E= Received: from 30.221.128.116(mailfrom:lulie@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WHGiB83_1729068455 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:47:36 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:47:35 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/3] net/udp: Add 4-tuple hash list basis To: Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, dsahern@kernel.org, antony.antony@secunet.com, steffen.klassert@secunet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, jakub@cloudflare.com, fred.cc@alibaba-inc.com, yubing.qiuyubing@alibaba-inc.com References: <20241012012918.70888-1-lulie@linux.alibaba.com> <20241012012918.70888-3-lulie@linux.alibaba.com> <9d611cbc-3728-463d-ba8a-5732e28b8cf4@redhat.com> <2888bb8f-1ee4-4342-968f-82573d583709@linux.alibaba.com> <7dde23ec-e813-4495-a0ca-6ed0f1276aa6@redhat.com> From: Philo Lu In-Reply-To: <7dde23ec-e813-4495-a0ca-6ed0f1276aa6@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2024/10/16 15:45, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 10/16/24 08:30, Philo Lu wrote: >> On 2024/10/14 18:07, Paolo Abeni wrote: >>> It would be great if you could please share some benchmark showing the >>> raw max receive PPS performances for unconnected sockets, with and >>> without this series applied, to ensure this does not cause any real >>> regression for such workloads. >>> >> >> Tested using sockperf tp with default msgsize (14B), 3 times for w/ and >> w/o the patch set, and results show no obvious difference: >> >> [msg/sec]  test1    test2    test3    mean >> w/o patch  514,664  519,040  527,115  520.3k >> w/  patch  516,863  526,337  527,195  523.5k (+0.6%) >> >> Thank you for review, Paolo. > > Are the value in packet per seconds, or bytes per seconds? Are you doing > a loopback test or over the wire? The most important question is: is the > receiver side keeping (at least) 1 CPU fully busy? Otherwise the test is > not very relevant. > It's in packet per seconds (msg/sec). I make the cpu fully busy by binding the nic irq the same cpu with the server socket. The consumption is like: %Cpu0: 3.0 us, 35.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 7.0 hi, 55.0 si, 0.0 st > It looks like you have some setup issue, or you are using a relatively > low end H/W: the expected packet rate for reasonable server H/W is well > above 1M (possibly much more than that, but I can't put my hands on > recent H/W, so I can't provide a more accurate figure). > > A single socket, user-space, UDP sender is usually unable to reach such > tput without USO, and even with USO you likely need to do an over-the- > wire test to really be able to keep the receiver fully busy. AFAICS > sockperf does not support USO for the sender. > > You could use the udpgso_bench_tx/udpgso_bench_rx pair from the net > selftests directory instead. > Thank you for your suggestion. I'll try it to see if I can get higher pps. -- Philo