![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
James Morris a écrit : > > Do you have any performance measurements? Yes, as I said in the first mail : >In oprofile results, ipt_do_table() was at the first position. >It is now at 6th position, using 1/3 of the CPU it was using before. >(Tests done on a dual Xeon i386 and a dual Opteron x86_64) On the dual opteron machine, with 40.000 packets coming per second, and 35.000 sent per second, the numbers were : 12.8 % before the patches, 4.4 % after the patches. I dont have separate perf measurements for each patch. Considering the fact that I inlined the read_lock_bh() call (not displayed in oprofile results, probably because of the special .spinlock.text section) that should have increased the profile of ipt_do_table(), thats a lot of CPU cycles and mem bandwitdh that are available for other jobs. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-22 05:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||