Smaller MAX_PACKET_SIZE and better batch cache locality#816
Merged
Conversation
zakird
approved these changes
Mar 10, 2024
Member
|
Thanks. Performance increase is slim, but it's a cleaner design for sure, so happy to merge. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a very arguable change, feel free to reject. I'm seeing a consistent ~ 0.7 % send rate improvement with lower-end hardware at 10 GbE close to but not quite at max send rate.
MAX_PACKET_SIZEfrom 4k to 2k minus metadata, which is still way above the standard MTU of 1500 that we probably don't want to exceed in order to avoid IP fragmentationExtra benefits:
MAX_PACKET_SIZEinstead of the previous two definitions ofMAX_PACKET_SIZETested on the usual macOS Sonoma, FreeBSD 14 and Ubuntu 23.10 with and without netmap.