[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: iperf: performance regression (was b44 driver problem?)
On Monday 04 June 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Stephen Hemminger <> wrote:
> > Yes, the following patch makes iperf work better than ever. But are
> > other broken applications going to have same problem. Sounds like the
> > old "who runs first" fork() problems.
> this is the first such app and really, and even for this app: i've been
> frequently running iperf on -rt kernels for _years_ and never noticed
> how buggy its 'locking' code was, and that it would under some
> circumstances use up the whole CPU on high-res timers.

I must admit I don't know much about that topic, but there is one thing I
don't understand. Why is iperf (even if it's buggy) able to use up the whole
cpu? I didn't run it as root but as my normal user so it should have limited
rights. Shouldn't the linux scheduler distribute cpu time among all running

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-04 21:51    [W:0.220 / U:3.236 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site