> On Jun 20, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Lonnie, > > Thanks for helping to debug this. > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:37 AM Lonnie Abelbeck > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hunk #1 only does the trick, though performance is ever so slightly slower >> 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://א.cc/eaxxpxbB and let me know if it has any effect?
That patch, as is, is very bad -- [SUM] 0.00-30.00 sec 1.26 GBytes 360 Mbits/sec 98 sender [SUM] 0.00-30.03 sec 1.25 GBytes 358 Mbits/sec receiver I then edited the patch to add back in local_bh_disable() / local_bh_enable(), much better -- [SUM] 0.00-30.00 sec 2.62 GBytes 751 Mbits/sec 1389 sender [SUM] 0.00-30.00 sec 2.61 GBytes 748 Mbits/sec receiver essentially back to 0.0.20180531 performance, hunk #1 from previous patch and hunk #1 from the latest patch. > Are you sure > the benchmark conditions were the same in other respects? Yes, quite sure, but there is some variation of the iperf3 results on each run ... I perform a few runs and then pick a median sample. Lonnie _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
