From: David Ahern Subject: Re: ipsec impact on performance Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 17:25:21 -0800 Message-ID: <565E4881.2030002@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <20151201175953.GC21252@oracle.com> <565DE446.2070609@hpe.com> <565E41B8.1080206@cumulusnetworks.com> <20151202010926.GH23178@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rick Jones , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Sowmini Varadhan Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:35133 "EHLO mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753804AbbLBBZY (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:25:24 -0500 Received: by pacej9 with SMTP id ej9so22902613pac.2 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:25:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151202010926.GH23178@oracle.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/1/15 5:09 PM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > The not-so-great news is that I see that just adding perf tracepoints > (not even enabling them!) seems to make a small diff (3 Gbps vs 3.2 Gbps) > to my numbers. Is that mere standard-deviation, or something > one should be aware of, about perf? existence of traepoints has no overhead until activated (ie., launch perf or start ftrace for those tracepoints).