| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:38:38 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org> Cc: starlight@...nacle.cx, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com> Subject: Re: big picture UDP/IP performance question re 2.6.18 -> 2.6.32 On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 14:16 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, starlight@...nacle.cx wrote: > > I've come to the conclusion that Eric is right > > and the primary issue is an increase in the > > cost of scheduler context switches. Have > > been watching this number and it has held > > pretty close to 200k/sec under all scenarios > > and kernel versions, so it has to be > > a longer code-path, bigger cache pressure > > or both in the scheduler. Sadly this makes > > newer kernels a no-go for us. > We had similar experiences. Basically latency constantly gets screwed up > by the new fancy features being added to the scheduler and network > subsystem (most notorious is the new "fair" scheduler, 2.6.23 made a big > step down). Idly curious, have you compared bfs performance? http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt -- 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