On Thu, 2005-09-06 at 14:37 -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> Okay let me clear this up once and for all, here is our test setup:
> * 10 1u rack machines (dual P3 - 1250MHz), with both windows and linux
> installed (running windows now)
> * Extreme 1gig switch
> * Dual 2.8 GHz P4 server, RHEL3 base, running 2.6.12-rc5 or supertso patch
> * the test entails transferring 1MB files of zeros from memory to memory,
> using TCP, with each client doing primary either send or recv, not both.
Linux as sender?
> > Even if they did have some smart ass thing in the middle that reorders,
> > it is still suprising that such a fast CPU cant handle a mere one Gig of
> > what seems to be MTU=1500 bytes sized packets.
> It can handle a single thread (or even 6) just fine, its after that we get
> in trouble somewhere.
Certainly interesting details?
> > I suppose a netstat -s would help for visualization in addition to those
> > dumps.
> Okay I have that data, do you want it for the old tso, supertso, or no tso
> at all?
hrmph - dont know. Dave could tell you.
I would say whatever you are running thats latest and greatest and
causes you trouble?
> > Heres what i am deducing from their data, correct me if i am wrong:
> > ->The evidence is that something is expensive in their code path (duh).
> Actually I've found that adding more threads (10 total) sending to the
> server, while keeping the transmit thread count constant yields an
> increase our throughput all the way to 1750+ Mb/s (with supertso)
> > -> Whatever that expensive thing code is, it not helped by them
> > replenishing the descriptors after all the budget is exhausted since the
> > descriptor departure rate is much slower than packet arrival.
> I'm running all my tests with the replenish patch mentioned earlier in
> this thread.
Ok. When i said " in the data path" - it could be anything from the
driver all the way to the socket.
If you have some pig along that path - it would mean you get back less
often to replenish the descriptors.
> > ---> This is why they would be seeing that the reduction of weight
> > improves performance since the replenishing happens sooner with a
> > smaller weight.
> seems like we're past the weight problem now, should i start a new thread?
I think so.
> > ------> Clearly the driver needs some fixing - if they could do what
> I'm not convinced it is the driver that is having issues. We might be
> having some complex interaction with the stack, but I definitely think we
> have a lot of onion layers to hack through here, all of which are probably
I agree. But the driver could have some improvement as well if you did
what the other driver does ;->
> I have profile data, here is an example of 5tx/5rx threads, where the
> throughput was 1236Mb/s total, 936tx, 300rx, on 2.6.12-rc5 with old TSO
> (the original problem case) we are at 100% cpu and generating 3289 ints/s,
> with no hardware drops reported prolly due to my replenish patch
Hrm, reading Stephen email as well ;->
Can you turn off netfilter off totaly? Most importantly remove