[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <490A0054.2030903@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:43:32 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
"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.
Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> 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.
tbench setups one socket per client, then send/receive lot of messages on this socket.
Connection setup time can be ignored for the tbench regression analysis
--
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