[Devel] Re: L2 network namespace benchmarking (resend with Service Demand)
Eric W. Biederman
ebiederm at xmission.com
Fri Apr 6 07:25:48 PDT 2007
Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery at bull.net> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> A couple of random thoughts in trying to understand the numbers you are
>> seeing.
>>
>> - Checksum offloading?
>>
>> You have noted that with the bridge netfilter support disabled you
>> are still seeing additional checksum overhead. Just like you are
>> seeing in the routing case.
>>
>> Is it possible the problem is simply that etun doesn't support
>> checksum offloading, while your normal test hardware does?
>
> Looks like you are 100% correct.
> I feel a bit stupid I didn't think about this "small" difference between real
> NIC and etun.
>
> If I turn off checksum offloading on my physical NIC, the checksum "overhead"
> (load) measured by oprofile is about the same in both case: when running netperf
> through a real NIC or through an etun tunnel first.
Interesting. You can also 'enable' checksum offloading when using etun with
ethtool. Which should just tell the kernel not to do checksumming. A
bad idea in general but it might be useful in confirming where the
performance overhead is coming from, and when used with routing I
believe it is safe. When used with bridging I don't know.
Thinking about it the ideal situation is to preserve skb->ip_summed it
if came from another device, instead of unconditionally setting it.
I need to take a good hard look at etun_xmit and make certain we
are dotting all of the i's and crossing all of the t's for best
performance and compatibility with the rest of the network stack.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list