Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1493918 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-30 09:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-10-09 09:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +0200
Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 04:40 +0200
Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2016-10-09 09:50 +0200
| From | Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression |
| Message-ID | <sn07f-73F-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On 08/23/2016 05:44 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > Em 19-08-2016 04:24, Aaron Lu escreveu: >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu: >>> ... >>>> It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have >>>> something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose? >>>> >>>> The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit, >>>> which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf. >>> >>> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the >>> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m). >>> >>> What's your netperf cmdline again please? >> >> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 >> >> Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value >> for our netperf performance test? Thanks. > > We're still working on this. Xin could reproduce it on an i3 too, but > I'm afraid this commit just unmasked an issue in there. You're > overloading the CPU by too much when spawning 8 parallel netperf's on a > 4-core system, seems that commit a6c2f79287 was that last rock that made > it slip into a precipice. sctp's cwnd and rwnd management are not as > good as tcp's and now it seems you're triggering a corner case. > > I hope to have more soon. I wonder if there is any update on this issue? Thanks, Aaron
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 04:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression |
| Message-ID | <so1kD-6Cz-69@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1493918 |
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote: > On 08/23/2016 05:44 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: >> Em 19-08-2016 04:24, Aaron Lu escreveu: >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu: >>>> ... >>>>> It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have >>>>> something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose? >>>>> >>>>> The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit, >>>>> which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf. >>>> >>>> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the >>>> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m). >>>> >>>> What's your netperf cmdline again please? >>> >>> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 >>> >>> Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value >>> for our netperf performance test? Thanks. >> >> We're still working on this. Xin could reproduce it on an i3 too, but >> I'm afraid this commit just unmasked an issue in there. You're >> overloading the CPU by too much when spawning 8 parallel netperf's on a >> 4-core system, seems that commit a6c2f79287 was that last rock that made >> it slip into a precipice. sctp's cwnd and rwnd management are not as >> good as tcp's and now it seems you're triggering a corner case. >> >> I hope to have more soon. > > I wonder if there is any update on this issue? > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git be4947b sctp: change to check peer prsctp_capable when using prsctp polices 0605483 sctp: remove prsctp_param from sctp_chunk 73dca12 sctp: move sent_count to the memory hole in sctp_chunk These three commit can avoid this issue by recovering sctp_chunk size.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sqh1T-1k6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1494678 |
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:32:04AM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote: > > On 08/23/2016 05:44 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > >> Em 19-08-2016 04:24, Aaron Lu escreveu: > >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu: > >>>> ... > >>>>> It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have > >>>>> something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose? > >>>>> > >>>>> The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit, > >>>>> which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf. > >>>> > >>>> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the > >>>> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m). > >>>> > >>>> What's your netperf cmdline again please? > >>> > >>> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 > >>> > >>> Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value > >>> for our netperf performance test? Thanks. > >> > >> We're still working on this. Xin could reproduce it on an i3 too, but > >> I'm afraid this commit just unmasked an issue in there. You're > >> overloading the CPU by too much when spawning 8 parallel netperf's on a > >> 4-core system, seems that commit a6c2f79287 was that last rock that made > >> it slip into a precipice. sctp's cwnd and rwnd management are not as > >> good as tcp's and now it seems you're triggering a corner case. > >> > >> I hope to have more soon. > > > > I wonder if there is any update on this issue? > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git > > be4947b sctp: change to check peer prsctp_capable when using prsctp polices > 0605483 sctp: remove prsctp_param from sctp_chunk > 73dca12 sctp: move sent_count to the memory hole in sctp_chunk > > These three commit can avoid this issue by recovering sctp_chunk size. Thanks for the update, I just confirmed the throughput is back on my desktop.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web