Messages in this thread | | | From | "David S. Miller" <> | Date | Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:56:45 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2 |
| |
Andrew Morton writes: > Changing the memory copy function did make some difference > in my setup. But the performance drop on send(8k) is only approx 10%, > partly because I changed the way I'm testing it - `cyclesoak' is > now penalised more heavily by cache misses, and amount of cache > missing which networking causes cyclesoak is basically the same, > whether or not the ZC patch is applied.
Ok ok ok, but are we at the point where there are no sizable "over the wire" performance anomalies anymore? That is what is important, what are the localhost bandwidth measurements looking like for you now with/without the patch applied?
I want to reach a known state where we can conclude "over the wire is about as good or better than before, but there is a cpu/cache usage penalty from the zerocopy stuff".
This is important. It lets us get to the next stage which is to use your tools, numbers, and some profiling to see if we can get some of that cpu overhead back.
Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com
- 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/
| |