Re: [ANNOUNCE] WireGuard Snapshot `0.0.20180620` Available

[Lonnie Abelbeck <lists@lonnie.abelbeck.com>]

> On Jun 20, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hey Lonnie,
>=20
> Thanks for helping to debug this.
>=20
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:37 AM Lonnie Abelbeck
> <lists@lonnie.abelbeck.com> wrote:
>> Hunk #1 only does the trick, though performance is ever so slightly =
slower than before overall.
>=20
> It's good to hear that hunks #2 and #3 don't have much an effect,
> though it does still seem to have _some_ effect.
>=20
> Looks like hunk 1 is rather worrisome though. Can you try out
> https://=D7=90.cc/eaxxpxbB and let me know if it has any effect?

That patch, as is, is very bad
--
[SUM]   0.00-30.00  sec  1.26 GBytes   360 Mbits/sec   98             =
sender
[SUM]   0.00-30.03  sec  1.25 GBytes   358 Mbits/sec                  =
receiver

I then edited the patch to add back in local_bh_disable() / =
local_bh_enable(), much better
--
[SUM]   0.00-30.00  sec  2.62 GBytes   751 Mbits/sec  1389             =
sender
[SUM]   0.00-30.00  sec  2.61 GBytes   748 Mbits/sec                  =
receiver

essentially back to 0.0.20180531 performance, hunk #1 from previous =
patch and hunk #1 from the latest patch.


> Are you sure
> the benchmark conditions were the same in other respects?

Yes, quite sure, but there is some variation of the iperf3 results on =
each run ... I perform a few runs and then pick a median sample.

Lonnie