[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1200303516.3151.30.camel@ymzhang>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:38:36 +0800
From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression in
2.6.24-rc6, comparing with 2.6.22
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 11:21 +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of fact, 2.6.23 has about 6% regression and 2.6.24-rc's
> > > > regression is between 16%~11%.
> > > >
> > > > I tried to use bisect to locate the bad patch between 2.6.22 and 2.6.23-rc1,
> > > > but the bisected kernel wasn't stable and went crazy.
> >
> > TCP work between that is very much non-existing.
>
> I _really_ meant 2.6.22 - 2.6.23-rc1, not 2.6.24-rc1 in case you had a
> typo
I did bisect 2.6.22 - 2.6.23-rc1. I also tested it on the latest 2.6.24-rc.
> there which is not that uncommon while typing kernel versions... :-)
Thanks. I will retry bisect and bind the server/client to the same logical processor, where
I hope the result is stable this time when bisecting.
Manual testing showed there is still same or more regression if I bind the
processes on the same cpu.
Thanks a lot!
-yanmin
--
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