From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: rm@romanrm.net Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 99af917f for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rin.romanrm.net (rin.romanrm.net [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:8b3b::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id f7b6990b for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 21:15:26 +0500 From: Roman Mamedov To: Lonnie Abelbeck Subject: Re: receive: use gro call instead of plain call Message-ID: <20180713211526.5ead23b8@natsu> In-Reply-To: References: <580E3DE0-4D06-46C5-A972-96C1F687A7B7@abelbeck.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:49:45 -0500 Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: > For certain lower-end x86 boxes I test, I noticed WG 0.0.20180708 w/NAPI actually slowed down receive performance. > > Jason recently added "receive: use gro call instead of plain call" [1] commit, which made a big performance improvement. Yes I'm also seeing about 20% higher performance with this patch (from 1.3-1.4 to 1.6 Gbit on same-host VMs). This is awesome! ...and... if I switch TCP Congestion Control from bbr to illinois on sender, I now get 2.0 Gbit. WTF. :) Lonnie, which one do you use on your hosts? Try with illinois (it was the best choice among all of them from my tests before bbr) and bbr (this one tends to get a bit lower speeds overall, but ramps up so much faster at the start). -- With respect, Roman