Thanks! On 2014/10/24 23:19, Rick Jones wrote: > On 10/24/2014 12:41 AM, Zhangjie (HZ) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I use netperf to test the performance of small tcp package, with TCP_NODELAY >> set : >> >> netperf -H 129.9.7.164 -l 100 -- -m 512 -D >> >> Among the packages I got by tcpdump, there is not only small packages, also >> lost of >> big ones (skb->len=65160). >> >> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 65160 >> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0 >> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0 >> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0 >> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 65160 >> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0 >> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0 >> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0 >> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 80 >> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 512 >> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 512 >> >> SO, how to test small tcp packages? Including TCP_NODELAY, What else should >> be set? > > Well, I don't think there is anything else you can set. Even with > TCP_NODELAY set, segment size with TCP will still be controlled by factors > such as congestion window. > > I am ass-u-me-ing your packet trace is at the sender. I suppose if your > sender were fast enough compared to the path that might combine with > congestion window to result in the very large segments. > > Not to say there cannot be a bug somewhere with TSO overriding TCP_NODELAY, > but in broad terms, even TCP_NODELAY does not guarantee small TCP segments. > That has been something of a bane on my attempts to use TCP for aggregate > small-packet performance measurements via netperf for quite some time. > > And since you seem to have included a virtualization mailing list I would > also ass-u-me that virtualization is involved somehow. Knuth only knows how > that will affect the timing of events, which will be very much involved in > matters of congestion window and such. I suppose it is even possible that if > the packet trace is on a VM receiver that some delays in getting the VM > running could mean that GRO would end-up making large segments being pushed > up the stack. > > happy benchmarking, Yes. Using netperf to send tcp packages frome physical nic has the same problems. Thanks for your explanation! > > rick jones > . >
-- Best Wishes! Zhang Jie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
