linux-kernel - Re: tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28

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

Message-Id: <20080811.141501.01468546.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	cl@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28

From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:36:38 -0500

> It seems that the network stack becomes slower over time? Here is a list of
> tbench results with various kernel versions:
> 
> 2.6.22		3207.77 mb/sec
> 2.6.24		3185.66
> 2.6.25		2848.83
> 2.6.26		2706.09
> 2.6.27(rc2)	2571.03
> 
> And linux-next is:
> 
> 2.6.28(l-next)	2568.74
> 
> It shows that there is still have work to be done on linux-next. Too close to
> upstream in performance.
> 
> Note the KT event between 2.6.24 and 2.6.25. Why is that?

Isn't that when some major scheduler changes went in?  I'm not blaming
the scheduler, but rather I'm making the point that there are other
subsystems in the kernel that the networking interacts with that
influences performance at such a low level.  This includes the memory
allocator :-)
--
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/