[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801141036400.31652@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:44:40 +0200 (EET)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
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 Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > The regression is:
> > 1)stoakley with 2 qual-core processors: 11%;
> > 2)Tulsa with 4 dual-core(+hyperThread) processors:13%;
> I have new update on this issue and also cc to netdev maillist.
> Thank David Miller for pointing me the netdev maillist.
>
> >
> > The test command is:
> > #sudo taskset -c 7 ./netserver
> > #sudo taskset -c 0 ./netperf -t TCP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 50,3 -I 99,5 -- -r 1,1
> >
> > 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.
Using git-reset's to select a nearby merge point instead of default
commit where bisection lands might be help in case the bisected kernel
breaks.
Also, limiting bisection under a subsystem might reduce probability of
brokeness (might at least be able to narrow it down quite a lot), e.g.
git bisect start net/
--
i.
--
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