From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2D3C10F00 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 01:34:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BA77222A3 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 01:34:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.com header.i=@icloud.com header.b="cz5VYoTP" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8BA77222A3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=icloud.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id db741b57; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 01:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 52d89d4b for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from st43p00im-zteg10072001.me.com (st43p00im-zteg10072001.me.com [17.58.63.167]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 637fddf9 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:54:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=04042017; t=1550167348; bh=IIPEr5Oncg0QgkYNDZvdyI72/Z4fKtTe32DMORwNFCI=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cz5VYoTP/64b4Z3r7zE/cLT/0nXL3dK9R8a9Igy3xf3oXf5RvJaA72CBzyDgUG+hw ZlpN6p6BYyBOQr9AzOEi03w6MeuT0xOtPe1FczOIKXQ2bCX9j8GT2H8zTFC507U1E9 6GJbNiDqUA/QNACPtHN1M4mkmzeUkrL0BJUQlG5+j5W4ygJ5oCQ1vK/t+NnJgATfKb 9CIHC55HikLbuMyh1fvzoP47i8EKCaCQNwxAqJyLjVQ4jppBZcCMqrMhvDKOn2h9KJ fOEaTkcmiEIjHcpoSYZUJ/W/8aXT9KIYMEpoCRackeomPe7L+EUAfkAPh0xOgy3mzd kAIFCgrZXfWgQ== Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [83.97.18.60]) by st43p00im-zteg10072001.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D4446E01DC for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:02:27 +0000 (UTC) To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com From: Lee Yates Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=rainmakerraw@icloud.com; keydata= mQENBFtSPGIBCACA1E2BjKjTOrhm43bkGwdwJHlgP04pimOFX3RrcA6YIg36mXvkCu8+q8we cTreZxGxVehb1VyQPkypI3k8UcfXWYm2t1uxGkiM/kCnUKsqBwJZXLxPM9erPIENwIf1hICc sPjEuMq2nIhYV8kfCOgwZKnbezy7kZ24edbVldz3dMniqiEeipkXWUr8y2UomYreGosFsLEN yj8RPFqYzCpvlFU9rT9wU5/+nwHtX1ySCmniR3MXurAWm6mAAJU9g/0dv5Ua8BCvvR/dadz4 RGA7CmvOYL8qcn5A5djFMOqNqIp9IQOn9XNHR6+W8JzVwTpaz8xkbO/yr2kjhxn9uU5BABEB AAG0I0xlZSBZYXRlcyA8cmFpbm1ha2VycmF3QGljbG91ZC5jb20+iQE/BBABCAApAhsDAhkB FiEExF+G9PyiAB1cKHnz7yXLzDsoqZIFAlwOpFAFCQKdm24ACgkQ7yXLzDsoqZLrxgf+LqIL Gu44ncKX8JNlASClX0edBz8dW1OxevG7Wv3fYFlBAFU8eNbUEYol0n/BJscTYcXu2SgJcP4T f3u/ZLOOUKmTkG9sBKwZyRq7dNjhpT3qUfm97VBUldBQQsziyAbEFnFP8V+nK/N20pFrFUO5 bNckeIp8vLUtWE3jXwhXdhy1Ynwac0nAQOZk/RBapHfDE0F9WWUWv4BxangkE3mcL1J0VEqQ p/aaqV2MgO7paaN5eIFjqd6akZV6ibtv3E1Ly6wHPZjraAFkoKr92QmfxREQ52fP7HTKsFZk pi9AvxkL/eQJZsLTAg61Hail3OwHoNMvF8YawAY475DUT0ZDJbkBDQRbUjxkAQgAgEetirjP rK6Jd/XvXugGNAYE7TBSKkdzCEHkDpI+4RuooXSyk4vgCuYh42ophEMPuVBkja9kFnn0vCed 2lt8TLC6lupCgifVfQe7VQeJ0N8qke25jk+k5ozkWuVap+PPVt4u6yItE2aO7Bqwl1p15v1J YJcr2LtPwEkCmIISpkcWgdWgj2QTwRjrKiJ3n6OxUDDdQiwNO2k9l4epuh0NfCghcfosN2K4 YFZkGCoPMA07ByJfV8hFBxPGHBUeI990Q7bwb4q0+ktt91vOTkN0EzxDbYYwfAmDsida8HoV SLZFQuPZ4Sk6U64lSdQE1czzJ8dLPyT8yONHDeyEtLKIPQARAQABiQE8BBgBCAAmAhsMFiEE xF+G9PyiAB1cKHnz7yXLzDsoqZIFAlwOpFAFCQKdm2wACgkQ7yXLzDsoqZJ+iQf/SY4HLXwH cf+Q7gs9IVIg8gArmgYwYKRKUMYqK/sZdDtKDB352dQAnpmdzXvZX1EOdzaA8Lv8yoMMVhpg UZa1vza0vA5hhYIzBEBuJDcYUzYKUL4JTR5RuV9IYcpB8K22u9zmin8bOE8fod3/zDovI7+b B7oZ0W0hz3eLUqTRA2+zNcnTlQuk5i0ckmofTYYazzpoQSHz9HEJ1c92zcyewUYYJNcIUr/y Zec+/b/AdaBXO2XaNL4nNcHnwzEcdXiLysIg7mZNl6N6+wE6zGhnDZ1/Kv3b1rATpFE7UqyZ lKbeh15KM/iQFviKk4VjnqrX0sKsbzRvAk68dsLOkGLOgA== Subject: Logical cores / SMT with WireGuard Message-ID: <735c8b20-c92b-2403-1557-32187b130a8f@icloud.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:02:26 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-GB X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-14_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=1 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1812120000 definitions=main-1902140123 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 02:26:10 +0100 X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi everyone, I have a small form-factor Dell Optiplex 7010 (Core i7 3700, 8GB DDR3, 128GB SSD) with a quad port Intel Pro 1000PT NIC, running Arch Linux, as my edge router. It covers two local subnets (trusted LAN, and DMZ/servers/IoT), with the trusted LAN clients all being routed out via an AzireVPN WireGuard tunnel on WAN. It works great for this and 15 minute load averages are in the order of 0.1! My question is about multithreading/SMT on that Core i7. At the moment I have it enabled, and WireGuard seems to simmer nicely across all 8 threads. However, with the known Intel security issues and recommendations to disable HT, I got to wondering how much - if at all - disabling HT would impact on WireGuard's real world performance. I mean, it obviously can utilise logical cores/threads, but is there a real world throughput benefit vs just using the real cores? While my router is overkill anyway (about 18% to 20% usage under full network load with 4c8t), I obviously still want to run it in the most efficient way possible. Is WireGuard making real use of those logical cores/threads? Or will it run just as well on 4 'real' cores as on 4 cores and 4 HT threads? I know the obvious answer is to test it out, but the router runs headless and is awkward to get a monitor to so I can access the BIOS. I did try for a short time when I first set it up, and aside from CPU usage going up (because of having half the available 'resources' with HT disabled) nothing seemed to change. My WAN is 'only' 400Mbps anyway so hardly a taxing test. Because of this, I can't really learn about how much WireGuard benefits from the extra threads, if it does at all, as either way I have headroom to spare for my current WAN provision. So, technically speaking, is WireGuard able/programmed to take demonstrable real world advantage of logical SMT/HT threads; or is more real cores the only proper way to scale performance with it? Cheers, Lee Yates -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEExF+G9PyiAB1cKHnz7yXLzDsoqZIFAlxlrS0ACgkQ7yXLzDso qZJROwf/b76RT+dFoo88KU36UJYRifluCBQ8TMfmj0DbWSQuyvQouJFqovYtt18/ UHSL/6KTgcHEkGFSaIQqAyP3xT7VjWjFhqyaOmBM1oAQ3HuVzmxnwkE4vumnhmHF CrkIHcLNG/8jT1Xddd5q9rVcABqgGqOjT8lyF83id3MCPWj2njxBczQvILXq7i21 jvkzfnpEA94qG5IdV2xtGBQbtLwbHIu+ek7ayVj+NbyjLfv708wvMhUAf/1pQHew WKBqv4tENMbKgrARhhS4YYHOo4nl14iRHQTDSm7a27xMdaDUW+M6+EtY+/citllx OH0s5SYkkUClWRLCsooXJipfVWkw1A== =Is7v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard