[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317542603.3802.48.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 10:03:23 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: starlight@...nacle.cx
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: big picture UDP/IP performance question re 2.6.18 -> 2.6.32
Le dimanche 02 octobre 2011 à 09:21 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> You might try to disable any fancy power saving mode in your machine.
> Maybe on your machine, cost to enter/exit deep sleep state is too high.
>
> I see nothing obvious in the profile but userland processing, futex
> calls.
Just to clarify a bit :
Sometimes, optimizing one part of the kernel can have a negative impact
on some workloads because we end up doing more sleep/wakeup of
consumers : Several threads might try to acquire a lock at the same
time, while previously they got no contention.
In 2.6.35, commit c377411f2494a (net: sk_add_backlog() take rmem_alloc
into account) changed backlog limit, avoid taking socket lock on flood,
allowing to receive 200.000 pps on a test machine instead of 100pps.
But the receiver was doing a plain
while (1)
recv(...);
And maximum throughput was reached because task never called
scheduler...
--
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