From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 20 17:37:10 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E756797C for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smarthost.sentex.ca", Issuer "smarthost.sentex.ca" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9368FCEE for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t2KHb8C5004066; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:37:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <550C5AAF.9060502@sentex.net> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:36:47 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John-Mark Gurney Subject: RELENG_10 performance regression (was Re: 35-40% performance drop releng9 vs releng10 openvpn References: <5506250A.2000506@sentex.net> <20150316132055.GQ32288@funkthat.com> <5509D6C6.4050204@sentex.net> <20150318211457.GL51048@funkthat.com> <550B6950.8060806@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <550B6950.8060806@sentex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:37:11 -0000 OK, just to refocus, I had been tracking down what I thought was a regression between RELENG9 and RELENG10, but looks more like an issue that cropped up somewhere between the beginning of March and now. For RELENG9, I was actually using a kernel from sources back on Jan 29th by accident. If I bring RELENG9 upto today, I get a similar performance loss. Again, I am testing a simple VPN router setup server1 --- apu --- server2 where server1 connections to the apu via an OpenVPN tunnel and server1 sends packets via netblast across the tunnel to server2. I get the following throughput using netblast through the tunnel on 10 Using # netblast 1.1.2.2 500 1200 15 (server1 to server2) on 10.x Kernel Mb/s rev r277684 76.7563 r279978 59.3233 All good at r278533, r278534, r279467 But at r279978 its quite a bit slower. So somewhere between r279467 and r279978. I will keep trying to narrow it down... ---Mike On 3/19/2015 8:26 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > On 3/18/2015 5:14 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >> # dtrace -x stackframes=100 -n 'profile-997 /arg0/ { @[stack()] = >> count(); } tick-60s { exit(0); }' -o out.kern_stacks >> >> Also, another thing you can do is to compare the two using differential >> flame graphs: >> http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2014-11-09/differential-flame-graphs.html >> >> >> Which will highlight where the performances differ... > > OK, some more data points. It seems a performance regression happened > in RELENG_10 somewhere between r277684 (late January 2015) and now. > Using r277684 on RELENG_10, I can get about 75Mb/s of throughput on > OpenVPN. Still not as good as the 83-85Mb on RELENG_9, but much better > than the 61Mb using RELENG_10 from the start of this week, > > For the differential graph, see > > http://tancsa.com/diffgraph.svg > > and > > http://tancsa.com/10-r277684.svg > http://tancsa.com/10-r277684-kern.svg > > ---Mike > > > > -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/