This reduces the speed with which these benchmarks exhaust their supply fds.
Not to zero unfortunately, but it's still helpful when doing long runs.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josh@tailscale.com>
The old decay-based one took a while to converge. This new one (based
very loosely on TCP BBR) seems to converge quickly on what seems to be
the best speed.
Signed-off-by: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@tailscale.com>
This tries to generate traffic at a rate that will saturate the
receiver, without overdoing it, even in the event of packet loss. It's
unrealistically more aggressive than TCP (which will back off quickly
in case of packet loss) but less silly than a blind test that just
generates packets as fast as it can (which can cause all the CPU to be
absorbed by the transmitter, giving an incorrect impression of how much
capacity the total system has).
Initial indications are that a syscall about every 10 packets (TCP bulk
delivery) is roughly the same speed as sending every packet through a
channel. A syscall per packet is about 5x-10x slower than that.
The whole tailscale wireguard-go + magicsock + packet filter
combination is about 4x slower again, which is better than I thought
we'd do, but probably has room for improvement.
Note that in "full" tailscale, there is also a tundev read/write for
every packet, effectively doubling the syscall overhead per packet.
Given these numbers, it seems like read/write syscalls are only 25-40%
of the total CPU time used in tailscale proper, so we do have
significant non-syscall optimization work to do too.
Sample output:
$ GOMAXPROCS=2 go test -bench . -benchtime 5s ./cmd/tailbench
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: tailscale.com/cmd/tailbench
cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4785T CPU @ 2.20GHz
BenchmarkTrivialNoAlloc/32-2 56340248 93.85 ns/op 340.98 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkTrivialNoAlloc/124-2 57527490 99.27 ns/op 1249.10 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkTrivialNoAlloc/1024-2 52537773 111.3 ns/op 9200.39 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkTrivial/32-2 41878063 135.6 ns/op 236.04 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkTrivial/124-2 41270439 138.4 ns/op 896.02 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkTrivial/1024-2 36337252 154.3 ns/op 6635.30 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkBlockingChannel/32-2 12171654 494.3 ns/op 64.74 MB/s 0 %lost 1791 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkBlockingChannel/124-2 12149956 507.8 ns/op 244.17 MB/s 0 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkBlockingChannel/1024-2 11034754 528.8 ns/op 1936.42 MB/s 0 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkNonlockingChannel/32-2 8960622 2195 ns/op 14.58 MB/s 8.825 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkNonlockingChannel/124-2 3014614 2224 ns/op 55.75 MB/s 11.18 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkNonlockingChannel/1024-2 3234915 1688 ns/op 606.53 MB/s 3.765 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkDoubleChannel/32-2 8457559 764.1 ns/op 41.88 MB/s 5.945 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkDoubleChannel/124-2 5497726 1030 ns/op 120.38 MB/s 12.14 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkDoubleChannel/1024-2 7985656 1360 ns/op 752.86 MB/s 13.57 %lost 1792 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkUDP/32-2 1652134 3695 ns/op 8.66 MB/s 0 %lost 176 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkUDP/124-2 1621024 3765 ns/op 32.94 MB/s 0 %lost 176 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkUDP/1024-2 1553750 3825 ns/op 267.72 MB/s 0 %lost 176 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkTCP/32-2 11056336 503.2 ns/op 63.60 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkTCP/124-2 11074869 533.7 ns/op 232.32 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkTCP/1024-2 8934968 671.4 ns/op 1525.20 MB/s 0 %lost 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkWireGuardTest/32-2 1403702 4547 ns/op 7.04 MB/s 14.37 %lost 467 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkWireGuardTest/124-2 780645 7927 ns/op 15.64 MB/s 1.537 %lost 420 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkWireGuardTest/1024-2 512671 11791 ns/op 86.85 MB/s 0.5206 %lost 411 B/op 3 allocs/op
PASS
ok tailscale.com/wgengine/bench 195.724s
Updates #414.
Signed-off-by: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@tailscale.com>
Brad Fitzpatrick
nicksherron
Josh Bleecher Snyder
Avery Pennarun