[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121003094732.GQ29125@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:47:32 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Netperf UDP_STREAM regression due to not sending IPIs in
ttwu_queue()
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:48:57PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 01:45 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> >SIZE=64
> >taskset -c 0 netserver
> >taskset -c 1 netperf -t UDP_STREAM -i 50,6 -I 99,1 -l 20 -H 127.0.0.1 -- -P 15895 -s 32768 -S 32768 -m $SIZE -M $SIZE
>
> Just FYI, unless you are running a hacked version of netperf, the
> "50" in "-i 50,6" will be silently truncated to 30.
>
I'm not using a hacked version of netperf. The 50,6 has been there a long
time so I'm not sure where I took it from any more. It might have been an
older version or me being over-zealous at the time.
> PS - I trust it is the receive-side throughput being reported/used
> with UDP_STREAM :)
Good question. Now that I examine the scripts, it is in fact the sending
side that is being reported which is flawed. Granted I'm not expecting any
UDP loss on loopback and looking through a range of results, the
difference is marginal. It's still wrong to report just the sending side
for UDP_STREAM and I'll correct the scripts for it in the future.
Thanks!
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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