[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005110324.03a9df10@binnacle.cx>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:12:15 -0400
From: starlight@...nacle.cx
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: big picture UDP/IP performance question re 2.6.18
-> 2.6.32
At 03:22 PM 10/5/2011 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 14:16 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>I suppose all this testing and feedback we receive
>from you really helps us keep the performance
>levels you want.. Oh wait, that's 0.
Well I have to admit that I've looked into the
future (i.e. tested kernel.org releases) only on
occasion. To the extent that performance wasn't
looking great I harbored an apparently over
optimistic hope that things would get tuned/fixed
in the process somewhere. In particular I was
thinking that RH might do something impressive
with RHEL 6 where Novell failed with SLES 11.
However, if anything the downstream is fiddling
less and less with the kernel as it becomes ever
more complex.
>Clearly none of the tests being ran on a regular
>basis, by for instance the Intel regression team,
>covers your needs. Start by fixing that.
I could create a test case. It's quite a lot more
than trivial, but not ridiculous either. That UDP
is broken on everything past 2.6.27 may goad me
into the effort. Have had a fairly excellent
experience WRT the hugepage kernel corruption bugs
I reported 18 months or so ago. Not only did the
kernel developers fix them, the fixes made it
downstream into RHEL fairly quickly. So that does
encourage me.
--
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