linux-kernel - Re: Poor UDP performance using 2.6.21-rc5-rt5

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <040220071717.18767.46113AB20004ED5D0000494F2200745672979D9D0A9F9C0E0B@comcast.net>
Date:	Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:17:38 +0000
From:	dasperry@...cast.net (dave_sperry@...e.org)
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Dave Sperry <dave_sperry@...e.org>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Poor UDP performance using 2.6.21-rc5-rt5


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> * dave_sperry@...e.org <dasperry@...cast.net> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for all the input Ingo, Here's a list of all the permutations 
> > I've tried:
> 
> one thing i noticed is that cyclesoak interferes with the netperf 
> workload. This is quite surprising. 'top' and 'vmstat' output is 
> reliable on -rt, and the overhead goes down if i stop cyclesoak.
> 
> 	Ingo

I see the same effect 

setup                    Thruput      CPU% 
cyclesoak on
2.6.21-rc5-rt8           937          74%
   netperf @51
   hardirq @50
   softirq @50

cyclesoak off
2.6.21-rc5-rt8           938          65%
   netperf @51
   hardirq @50
   softirq @50


Dave
-
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/