Thread (15 messages) flat view 15 messages, 7 authors, 2015-11-09

RE: linux-next network throughput performance regression

From: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Date: 2015-11-09 03:46:25
Also in: lkml

From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net]
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 11:24
...
quoted
Thanks, David!
I understand 1 TX queue is the bottleneck (however in Simon's
test, TX=1 => 36.7Gb/s, TX=8 => 37.7 Gb/s, so it looks the TX=1 bottleneck
is not so obvious).
I'm just wondering how the bottleneck became much narrower with
recent linux-next in Simon's result (36.7 Gb/s vs. 18.2 Gb/s). IMO there
must be some latency somewhere.
I think the whole thing here is that you misinterpreted what Eric said.

He is not arguing that some regression did, or did not, happen.

He instead was making the basic statement about the fact that due to
the lack of paralellness a single stream TCP case is harder to
optimize for high speed NICs.

That is all.
Thanks, I got it. 
I'm actually new to network performance tuning, trying to understand
all the related details. :-)

Thanks,
-- Dexuan
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help