Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-24 Thread Marko Zec
On Tuesday 24 September 2013 00:46:46 Sami Halabi wrote: > Hi, > > > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~**luigi/papers/20120601-dxr.pdf >et.unipi.it/~luigi/papers/20120601-dxr.pdf> > > http://www.nxlab.fer.hr/dxr/**stable_8_20120824.diff >er.hr/dxr/stable_8_20120824.diff

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-23 Thread Sami Halabi
Hi, > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~**luigi/papers/20120601-dxr.pdf > http://www.nxlab.fer.hr/dxr/**stable_8_20120824.diff I've tried the diff in 10-current, applied cleanly but had errors compi

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-23 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:58:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > I've found the paper I was talking about: > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/papers/20120601-dxr.pdf > > It claims that our radix is able to do 6MPPS/core and it does not scale > with number of cores. Our radix is bugly an

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-22 Thread Adrian Chadd
Hi! On 22 September 2013 13:12, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > I'm thinking the same way, but we're stuck with 'forwarding lookup' due > to problem with egress interface pointer, as I mention earlier. However it > is interesting to see how much it helps, regardless of locking. > > Currently

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-22 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
On 29.08.2013 15:49, Adrian Chadd wrote: Hi, Hello Adrian! I'm very sorry for the looong reply. There's a lot of good stuff to review here, thanks! Yes, the ixgbe RX lock needs to die in a fire. It's kinda pointless to keep locking things like that on a per-packet basis. We should be able

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-22 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:01:17AM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > On 29.08.2013 05:32, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:24:48AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > >>> .. > >>> while Intel DPDK claims 80MPPS (and 6windgate talks about 160 or so) on > >>> the same-c

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-22 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
On 14.09.2013 22:49, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA, a netmap sender is more than enough The great netmap generates only one IP flow (same src/dst IP and same src/dst port). Th

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-22 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
On 29.08.2013 02:24, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 28.08.2013 20:30, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: Hello list! Hello Alexander, Hello Andre! I'm very sorry to answer so late. you sent quite a few things in the same email. I'll try to respond as much as I can right now. Later you should split

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-22 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
On 29.08.2013 05:32, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:24:48AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: .. while Intel DPDK claims 80MPPS (and 6windgate talks about 160 or so) on the same-class hardware and _userland_ forwarding. Those numbers sound a bit far out. Maybe if the packet

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-20 Thread George Neville-Neil
On Sep 19, 2013, at 16:08 , Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:54:34PM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote: >> >> On Sep 14, 2013, at 15:24 , Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Olivier Cochard-Labb? >>> wrote: On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM,

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-19 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:54:34PM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 15:24 , Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Olivier Cochard-Labb? > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > >> > > >> IXIA ? For the time

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-19 Thread George Neville-Neil
On Sep 14, 2013, at 15:24 , Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Olivier Cochard-Labbé > wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >>> >>> IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA, >>> a netmap sender is more than enough >>> >>

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-19 Thread George Neville-Neil
On Sep 14, 2013, at 15:24 , Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Olivier Cochard-Labbé > wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > >> > >> IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA, > >> a netmap sender is more than enough

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-14 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> >> IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA, >> a netmap sender is more than enough >> > > The great netmap generates only one IP flow (same src/dst IP

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-14 Thread Olivier Cochard-Labbé
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA, > a netmap sender is more than enough > The great netmap generates only one IP flow (same src/dst IP and same src/dst port). This don't permit to test multi-queue NIC (or SM

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-14 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:08:27AM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:49 , Adrian Chadd wrote: ... > One quick note here. Every time you increase batching you may increase > bandwidth > but you will also increase per packet latency for the last packet in a batch. The o

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-14 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:08:27AM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:49 , Adrian Chadd wrote: ... > > I still have some tool coding to do with PMC before I even think about > > tinkering with this as I'd like to measure stuff like per-packet latency as > > well as top-le

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-14 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 13 September 2013 15:43, Rick Macklem wrote: > And any time you increase latency, that will have a negative impact on > NFS performance. NFS RPCs are usually small messages (except Write requests > and Read replies) and the RTT for these (mostly small, bidirectional) > messages can have a sig

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-14 Thread Rick Macklem
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > > > > > And any time you increase latency, that will have a negative impact > > on > > NFS performance. NFS RPCs are usually small messages (except Write > > requests > > and Read replies) and the RTT for these (mostly small, > > bidirectional) > > messages can have a sign

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-14 Thread Sam Fourman Jr.
> > And any time you increase latency, that will have a negative impact on > NFS performance. NFS RPCs are usually small messages (except Write requests > and Read replies) and the RTT for these (mostly small, bidirectional) > messages can have a significant impact on NFS perf. > > rick > > this m

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-13 Thread Rick Macklem
George Neville-Neil wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:49 , Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > There's a lot of good stuff to review here, thanks! > > > > Yes, the ixgbe RX lock needs to die in a fire. It's kinda pointless > > to keep > > locking things like that on a per-packet basis. We sho

Re: Network stack changes

2013-09-13 Thread George Neville-Neil
On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:49 , Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > There's a lot of good stuff to review here, thanks! > > Yes, the ixgbe RX lock needs to die in a fire. It's kinda pointless to keep > locking things like that on a per-packet basis. We should be able to do > this in a cleaner way - we ca

Re: Network stack changes

2013-08-29 Thread Adrian Chadd
Hi, There's a lot of good stuff to review here, thanks! Yes, the ixgbe RX lock needs to die in a fire. It's kinda pointless to keep locking things like that on a per-packet basis. We should be able to do this in a cleaner way - we can defer RX into a CPU pinned taskqueue and convert the interrupt

Re: Network stack changes

2013-08-28 Thread Bryan Venteicher
- Original Message - > On 28.08.2013 20:30, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > > Hello list! > > Hello Alexander, > > you sent quite a few things in the same email. I'll try to respond > as much as I can right now. Later you should split it up to have > more in-depth discussions on the i

Re: Network stack changes

2013-08-28 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:24:48AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > .. > > while Intel DPDK claims 80MPPS (and 6windgate talks about 160 or so) on the > > same-class hardware and > > _userland_ forwarding. > > Those numbers sound a bit far out. Maybe if the packet isn't touched > or looked at

Re: Network stack changes

2013-08-28 Thread Andre Oppermann
On 28.08.2013 20:30, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: Hello list! Hello Alexander, you sent quite a few things in the same email. I'll try to respond as much as I can right now. Later you should split it up to have more in-depth discussions on the individual parts. If you could make it to the

Re: Network stack changes

2013-08-28 Thread Jack Vogel
Very interesting material Alexander, only had time to glance at it now, will look in more depth later, thanks! Jack On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov < melif...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > Hello list! > > There is a lot constantly raising discussions related to networking

Network stack changes

2013-08-28 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
Hello list! There is a lot constantly raising discussions related to networking stack performance/changes. I'll try to summarize current problems and possible solutions from my point of view. (Generally this is one problem: stack is slooow, but we need to know why an