Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 09:20:05PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> ...
> > >From my profiling with the Agilent tester there seem to be two areas where
> > the packet filters (ipfw in my test case) burn a lot of CPU per packet.
> > That is a) setup of lots of packet variables unconditionally at the entry
> > of ip_fw_chk() no matter whether they get looked at later or not, and b)
> > the switch() going through all the packet inspection options is for some
> > reason not optimized by the compiler and burns even more CPU. Some sort
> > of JIT (as in the new bpf code) which replaces the case testing and jumps
> > directly to the proper place in the switch statement would go a long way
> > of making it way more performant.
>
> i was expecting some overhead in the initial setting of
> variables but the cost of the switch() surprises me a bit.
> did you look at the assembly code produced, or otherwise
> could you explain a bit more how you think the switch
> affects performance ?
> Maybe one could make it cheaper through an indirect function call ?
> (in the end, instructions are already indexes for a jump table).
I didn't look at the assembler code as I can't do assembler.
In my testing (on UP) the peak forwarding rate on this particular hardware
with fastforwarding enabled dropped from 580kpps to 476kpps (ipfw allow all)
to 357kpps (30 non-matching rules on IP address).
The number of CPU instructions and branches per packet is as follows:
maxkpps instr. branch mispred dcache icfetch icmiss
fastfwd 580 2238 300 3.8 1429 812 0.06
fastfwd+ipfw 476 2573 329 17.2 1721 1005 4.31
fastfwd+ipfw30 357 3493 508 15.2 2129 1500 3.35
The setup of the packet variables only happens once per packet. The overhead
thus must come from the micro-op evaluation.
--
Andre
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
