On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>> Okay, now I'm confused. You're saying that when early demux was added
>> for IPv6 performance improved, but this patch is allowing early demux
>> to be disabled on the basis that it hurts performance for unconnected
>> UDP workloads. While it's true that early demux in the case results in
>> another UDP lookup, Eric's changes to make it lockless have made that
>> lookup very cheap. So we really need numbers to justify this patch.
>>
>
> Fact that the lookup is lockless does not avoid a cache line miss.
>
> Early demux computes a hash based on the 4-tuple, and lookups a hash
> table with does not fit in cpu caches.
>
> A cache line miss per packet is expensive, when handling millions of UDP
> packets per second, (with millions of 4-tuples)
>
>> Even if the numbers were to show a benefit, we still have the problem
>> that this creates a bimodal performance characteristic, e.g. what if
>> the work load were 1/2 connected and 1/2 unconnected in real life, or
>> what it the user incorrectly guesses the actual workload. Maybe a
>> deeper solution to investigate is making early demux work with
>> unconnected sockets.
>
> Sure, but forcing all UDP applications to perform IP early demux is not
> better.
>
All these hypotheses are quite testable, and it should be obvious that
if a patch is supposed to improve performance there should be some
effort to quantify the impact.
