[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49E98D4C.8020406@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:20:28 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 (results with
IRQ affinity)
Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Christoph Lameter a écrit :
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, David Miller wrote:
>>
>>> We really need to find a good way to fix that IRQ affinity issue.
>> Here are the results with setting interrupt affinity. We are still loosing
>> 5 usecs from .22 to .30-rc2. We will investigate more in depth time
>> permitting.
>>
>> UDP ping pong 40 bytes
>>
>> Kernel Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Avg
>> 2.6.22 83.1125 83.4 83.03 82.95 83.07
>> 2.6.23 83.33 83.51 83.18 83.42 83.21
>> 2.6.24 82.7775 82.8 82.77 82.77 82.77
>> 2.6.25 85.875 85.94 85.75 86.06 85.75
>> 2.6.26 87.4025 87.53 87.25 87.3 87.53
>> 2.6.27 87.81 87.81 87.77 87.82 87.84
>> 2.6.28 87.4275 87.77 87.24 87.28 87.42
>> 2.6.29 88.4325 88.48 88.42 88.44 88.39
>> 2.6.30-rc2 88.4925 88.49 88.44 88.56 88.48
>
>
> You are using UDP, and UDP got memory accounting. This
This could explain a slowdown, but not 2.5 us per packet
(I take half your 5us, since you are measuring the two ways latencies)
--
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