From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To: Lonnie Abelbeck <lists@lonnie.abelbeck.com>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] WireGuard Snapshot `0.0.20180620` Available
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:47:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9oP5tPNbyYECJN4wgcPc4zg3QE9n2edx_TQQmn5tCbWjA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <981DB695-E660-431D-B5E9-ABD2D1352F9F@lonnie.abelbeck.com>
Hey Lonnie,
Thanks for helping to debug this.
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 slowe=
r than before overall.
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.
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?
> Is this issue because our project uses CONFIG_PREEMPT=3Dy ?
Yes, generally, preemption is good for latency but bad for throughput.
I was trying to make the queues a bit more preemption friendly, but
this seemed to have killed performance, so I'll be revisiting this,
because I don't want to make things worse than before.
I find it very strange that 20180531 is still faster than the last
patch I sent you. The only other difference along the hot path,
besides the last patch I sent you, between the two snapshots is
https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/patch/?id=3Db7b193f499d4acd8a620163ec358c08=
30e856c9e
and this is _removing_ code, so I'd think this would actually
contribute to a speed increase, not a slight decrease. Are you sure
the benchmark conditions were the same in other respects?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-20 23:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-20 19:19 Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-06-20 20:11 ` Lonnie Abelbeck
2018-06-20 20:33 ` Matthias Urlichs
2018-06-20 21:24 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-06-20 22:37 ` Lonnie Abelbeck
2018-06-20 23:47 ` Jason A. Donenfeld [this message]
2018-06-21 0:22 ` Lonnie Abelbeck
2018-06-21 13:51 ` Lonnie Abelbeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAHmME9oP5tPNbyYECJN4wgcPc4zg3QE9n2edx_TQQmn5tCbWjA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=lists@lonnie.abelbeck.com \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).