[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080929064518.GA10653@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:45:18 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: Patch for tbench regression.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:40:06PM +0800, Herbert Xu (herbert@...dor.apana.org.au) wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 09:52:03AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:40:52PM +0800, Herbert Xu (herbert@...dor.apana.org.au) wrote:
> > > Are you using Xen FV or PV? What processor?
> >
> > Can I determine that within guest?
>
> cat /proc/interrupts
>
> should do the trick
That's what I have:
$ cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 71 XT-PIC-XT timer
1: 8 XT-PIC-XT i8042
2: 0 XT-PIC-XT cascade
5: 17606 XT-PIC-XT eth0
12: 5 XT-PIC-XT i8042
14: 6925 XT-PIC-XT ide0
15: 141 XT-PIC-XT ide1
NMI: 0 Non-maskable interrupts
LOC: 1190668 Local timer interrupts
RES: 0 Rescheduling interrupts
CAL: 0 function call interrupts
TLB: 0 TLB shootdowns
TRM: 0 Thermal event interrupts
SPU: 0 Spurious interrupts
ERR: 0
MIS: 0
> > Actually it is a bit strange, if full or paravirtualization affects how
> > loopback network works, I thought it should only affect communication
> > between domains?
>
> It also affects the MMU and other things.
Shouldn't tests over loopback be like lots of memcpy in the userspace
process? Usually its performance is close enough to the kernel's range,
despite very different sizes of TLB entries.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists