[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081030184024.GA6314@ioremap.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:40:24 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <s0mbre@...rvice.net.ru>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:15:26AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger (shemminger@...tta.com) wrote:
> Has anyone looked into the impact of port randomization on this benchmark.
> If it is generating lots of sockets quickly there could be an impact:
> * port randomization causes available port space to get filled non-uniformly
> and what was once a linear scan may have to walk over existing ports.
> (This could be improved by a hint bitmap)
>
> * port randomization adds at least one modulus operation per socket
> creation. This could be optimized by using a loop instead.
In this benchmark only two sockets are created per client for the whole
run, so this should not have any impact on performance.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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