> -----Original Message----- > From: n...@orbyte.nwl.cc [mailto:n...@orbyte.nwl.cc] On Behalf Of Phil > Sutter > Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 9:32 PM > To: Chris Mi <chr...@mellanox.com> > Cc: dsah...@gmail.com; marcelo.leit...@gmail.com; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; gerlitz...@gmail.com; > step...@networkplumber.org > Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode > > Hi Chris, > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:03:53AM +0000, Chris Mi wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:34:51PM +0900, Chris Mi wrote: > > > > The insertion rate is improved more than 10%. > > > > > > Did you measure the effect of increasing batch sizes? > > Yes. Even if we enlarge the batch size bigger than 10, there is no big > improvement. > > I think that's because current kernel doesn't process the requests in > parallel. > > If kernel processes the requests in parallel, I believe specifying a > > bigger batch size will get a better result. > > But throughput doesn't regress at some point, right? I think that's the > critical > aspect when considering an "unlimited" batch size. Yes. > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:00:00AM +0000, Chris Mi wrote: > > After testing, I find that the message passed to kernel should not be too > big. > > If it is bigger than about 64K, sendmsg returns -1, errno is 90 (EMSGSIZE). > > That is about 400 commands. So how about set batch size to 128 which is > big enough? > > If that's the easiest way, why not. At first, I thought one could maybe send > the collected messages in chunks of suitable size, but that's probably not > worth the effort. OK.
-Chris
