netdev - Re: Patch for tbench regression.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20080929071119.GA29076@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date:	Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:11:19 +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 03:02:13PM +0800, Herbert Xu (herbert@...dor.apana.org.au) wrote:
> > $ 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
> 
> OK you're on FV as well.  I'll try it on my laptaop next.

How did you find that? :)

> > 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.
> 
> Where it may differ is when you have context switches.

Yes, of course, even single empty syscall may potentially force process
the be scheduled away, bit still performance will not be with 24/190
ratio... Weird.

-- 
	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