netdev - Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression in 2.6.24-rc6, comparing with 2.6.22

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1200979482.3151.103.camel@ymzhang>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:24:42 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression
	in	2.6.24-rc6,	comparing with 2.6.22

On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 09:46 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> >>*) netperf/netserver support CPU affinity within themselves with the 
> >>global -T option to netperf.  Is the result with taskset much different? 
> >>   The equivalent to the above would be to run netperf with:
> >>
> >>./netperf -T 0,7 ..
> > 
> > I checked the source codes and didn't find this option.
> > I use netperf V2.3 (I found the number in the makefile).
> 
> Indeed, that version pre-dates the -T option.  If you weren't already 
> chasing a regression I'd suggest an upgrade to 2.4.mumble.  Once you are 
> at a point where changing another variable won't muddle things you may 
> want to consider upgrading.
> 
> happy benchmarking,
Rick,

I found my UDP_RR testing is just loop in netperf instead of ping-pang between
netserver and netperf. Is it correct? TCP_RR is ok.

#./netserver
#./netperf -t UDP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 30,3 -I 99,5 -- -P 12384 -r 1,1

Thanks,
-yanmin


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html