lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:

>
> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:13 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:36:38 -0500
> > >
> > > > It seems that the network stack becomes slower over time? Here is a list of
> > > > tbench results with various kernel versions:
> > > >
> > > > 2.6.22 3207.77 mb/sec
> > > > 2.6.24 3185.66
> > > > 2.6.25 2848.83
> > > > 2.6.26 2706.09
> > > > 2.6.27(rc2) 2571.03
> > > >
> > > > And linux-next is:
> > > >
> > > > 2.6.28(l-next) 2568.74
> > > >
> > > > It shows that there is still have work to be done on linux-next. Too close to
> > > > upstream in performance.
> > > >
> > > > Note the KT event between 2.6.24 and 2.6.25. Why is that?
> > >
> > > Isn't that when some major scheduler changes went in? I'm not blaming
> > > the scheduler, but rather I'm making the point that there are other
> > > subsystems in the kernel that the networking interacts with that
> > > influences performance at such a low level.
> >
> > ...IIRC, somebody in the past did even bisect his (probably netperf)
> > 2.6.24-25 regression to some scheduler change (obviously it might or might
> > not be related to this case of yours)...
> I did find much regression with netperf TCP-RR-1/UDP-RR-1/UDP-RR-512. I start
> 1 serve and 1 client while binding them to a different logical processor in
> different physical cpu.
>
> Comparing with 2.6.22, the regression of TCP-RR-1 on 16-core tigerton is:
> 2.6.23 6%
> 2.6.24 6%
> 2.6.25 9.7%
> 2.6.26 14.5%
> 2.6.27-rc1 22%
>
> Other regressions on other machines are similar.

I btw reorganized tcp_sock for 2.6.26, it shouldn't cause this but it's
not always obvious what even a small change in field ordering does for
performance (it's b79eeeb9e48457579cb742cd02e162fcd673c4a3 in case you
want to check that).

Also, there was this 83f36f3f35f4f83fa346bfff58a5deabc78370e5 fix to
current -rcs but I guess it might not be that significant in your case
(but I don't know well enough :-)).

--
i.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-18 09:55    [W:0.160 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site