[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081118083018.GI17838@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:30:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, dada1@...mosbay.com, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, efault@....de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: eth_type_trans(): Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each
kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28
* David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:26:57 +0100
>
> > eth->h_proto access.
>
> Yes, this is the first time a packet is touched on receive.
>
> > Given that this workload does localhost networking, my guess would be
> > that eth->h_proto is bouncing around between 16 CPUs? At minimum this
> > read-mostly field should be separated from the bouncing bits.
>
> It's the packet contents, there is no way to "seperate it".
>
> And it should be unlikely bouncing on your system under tbench, the
> senders and receivers should hang out on the same cpu unless the
> something completely stupid is happening.
>
> That's why I like running tbench with a num_threads command line
> argument equal to the number of cpus, every cpu gets the two thread
> talking to eachother over the TCP socket.
yeah - and i posted the numbers for that too - it's the same
throughput, within ~1% of noise.
Ingo
--
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