lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: big picture UDP/IP performance question re 2.6.18 -> 2.6.32
From
Date
Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 02:58 -0400, starlight@binnacle.cx a
écrit :
> Final note:
>
> I had captured latency measurements for
> two of the three kernels. Just ran
> 2.6.18(rhel5) and the results are
> stunning. The older kernel is much,
> much better then the newer kernel.
>
> Average latency is three times better
> and the standard deviation is six
> time better. As in 300% and 600%.
>
> Latency here is the time it takes
> a packet to travel from the kernel
> (where it is timestamped) till it
> reaches the final consumption point
> in the application.
>
> Makes me think that the old kernel
> is better at keeping caches hot and
> scheduling woken threads on the same
> cores as the threads that triggered
> them.
>

Note :

Your results are from a combination of a user application and kernel
default strategies.

On other combinations, results can be completely different.

A wakeup strategy is somewhat tricky :

- Should we affine or not.
- Should we queue the wakeup on a remote CPU, to keep scheduler data hot
in a single cpu cache.
- Should we use RPS/RFS to queue the packet to another CPU before even
handling it in our stack, to keep network data hot in a single cpu
cache. (check Documentation/networking/scaling.txt)

At least, with recent kernels, we have many available choices to tune a
workload.



--
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: 2011-10-05 10:55    [W:0.044 / U:1.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site