[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48E10B40.4000205@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:07:12 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>, 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.
Sigh - email reading timing.... anyway
> It seems that netperf is issuing 16384-byte writes and as such
> we're sending the packets out immediately so TSO doesn't get a
> chance to merge the data. Running netperf with -m 65536 makes
> TSO beat non-TSO by 6293Mb/s to 4761Mb/s.
By default, netperf's TCP_STREAM test will use whatever
getsockopt(SO_SNDBUF) reports just after the data socket is created.
The choice was completely arbitrary and burried deep in the history of
netperf.
For evaluating changes, it would probably be a good idea to test a
number of settings for the test-specific -m option. Of course I have no
good idea what those values should be. There is the tcp_range_script
(might be a bit dusty today) but those values are again pretty arbitrary.
It would probably be a good idea to include the TCP_RR test.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
As an asside - I would be interested in hearing peoples' opinions
(offline) on a future version of netperf possibly violating the
principle of least surprise and automatically including CPU utilization
if the code is running on a system which does not require calibration...
--
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