[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061108150007.49eaea68@freekitty>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:00:07 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
To: tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: Olaf Kirch <okir@...e.de>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...set.davemloft.net,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:32 -0800
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:10 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
>
> >
> > In fixing performance issues, the most obvious explanation isn't always
> > the right one. It's quite possible you're right, sure.
> >
> > What I'm saying though is that it doesn't rhyme with what I've seen of
> > Volanomark - we ran 2.6.16 on a 4p Intel box for instance and it didn't
> > come close to saturating a Gigabit pipe before it maxed out on CPU load.
> >
>
> I am running Volanomark in a loopback mode on a 2P woodcrest box
> (4 cores). So the configuration is a bit different.
>
> In my testing, the CPU utilization is at 100%. So
> increase in ACKs will cost CPU to devote more
> time to process those ACKs and reduce throughput.
>
> >
> > You could count the number of outbound packets dropped on the server.
> >
>
> As I'm running in loopback mode, there are no dropped packets.
>
Optimizing for loopback is perversion; perversion can be fun but it gets
to be a obsession then it's sick.
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists