From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Apr 9 00:17:42 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB0E156D647 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F126B055 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id D0AC0156D646; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBAA156D645 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43CB96B053 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37E0417996 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x390HeNF070452 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:40 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x390HeMA070445 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:17:40 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 237072] netgraph(4): performance issue [on HardenedBSD]? Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:17:39 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: prj@rootwyrm.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable11? mfc-stable12? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:17:42 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D237072 --- Comment #11 from Phillip R. Jaenke --- This does surprise me somewhat as the performance is definitely NOT as expe= cted based on other comparative benchmarks. I think this may actually be a severe CPU performance regression. The processor involved is an Atom E3845 @ 1.9GHz. Using Passmark as a base = for comparison, we should expect performance to be approximately 55-60% of an A= tom C2758 SoC, within margin of error on AMD GX-412HC (PCEngines APU2 w/i210,) = and approximately 3x faster (minimum) than an AMD G-T40E (PCEngines APU1 w/Realtek.) This should reasonably apply to both forwarding and firewalling throughput. Looking at BSDRP's results to establish reasonable expectations, what we instead see is the E3845 managing a peak throughput rate roughly comparable= to the AMD G-T40E. Missing the expected mark by 40% or more. Whereas switching to the i3-7100U (slightly faster than the C2758) results = in a GREATER than 100% immediate performance gain (likely quantifiable as more t= han 150% total.)=20 Based on that, I think this might actually be exposing some flavor of regression. Independent benchmarks of various E3845 appliances running 11.2= put the expected numbers for firewalling NAT at 800-900Mbps with no tuning (and encrypted traffic at a whole 300Mbps best case with the CPU completely pegg= ed.) What was observed was 500-600Mbps with <50% total CPU utilization. It would seem to me that outside of a regression, one of those numbers (either, real= ly) should be higher. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=