[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4926FBBB.3050002@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:19:39 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22
-> 2.6.28
Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Christoph Lameter a écrit :
>> AIM9 results:
>> TCP UDP
>> 2.6.22 104868.00 489970.03
>> 2.6.28-rc5 110007.00 518640.00
>> net-next 108207.00 514790.00
>>
>> net-next looses here for some reason against 2.6.28-rc5. But the numbers
>> are better than 2.6.22 in any case.
>>
>
> I found that on current net-next, running oprofile in background can
> give better bench
> results. Thats really curious... no ?
>
>
> So the single loop on close(socket()), on all my 8 cpus is almost 10%
> faster if oprofile
> is running... (20 secs instead of 23 secs)
>
Oh well, thats normal, since when a cpu is interrupted by a NMI, and
distracted by oprofile code, it doesnt fight with other cpus on dcache_lock
and other contended cache lines...
--
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