[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1271424065.4606.31.camel@bigi>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:21:05 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, therbert@...gle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, robert@...julf.net, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: rps perfomance WAS(Re: rps: question
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 07:18 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> A kernel module might do this, this could be integrated in perf bench so
> that we can regression tests upcoming kernels.
Perf would be good - but even softnet_stat cleaner than the the nasty
hack i use (attached) would be a good start; the ping with and without
rps gives me a ballpark number.
IPI is important to me because having tried it before it and failed
miserably. I was thinking the improvement may be due to hardware used
but i am having a hard time to get people to tell me what hardware they
used! I am old school - I need data;-> The RFS patch commit seems to
have more info but still vague, example:
"The benefits of RFS are dependent on cache hierarchy, application
load, and other factors"
Also, what does a "simple" or "complex" benchmark mean?;->
I think it is only fair to get this info, no?
Please dont consider what i say above as being anti-RPS.
5 microsec extra latency is not bad if it can be amortized.
Unfortunately, the best traffic i could generate was < 20Kpps of
ping which still manages to get 1 IPI/packet on Nehalem. I am going
to write up some app (lots of cycles available tommorow). I still think
it is valueable.
cheers,
jamal
View attachment "p1" of type "text/x-patch" (1552 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists