[ANNOUNCE] WireGuard Snapshot `0.0.20180620` Available
lists at lonnie.abelbeck.com
Thu Jun 21 02:22:20 CEST 2018
> On Jun 20, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com> wrote:
> Hey Lonnie,
> Thanks for helping to debug this.
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:37 AM Lonnie Abelbeck
> <lists at lonnie.abelbeck.com> 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.
More information about the WireGuard