Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755268Ab3CTUiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:38:18 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:35593 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752541Ab3CTUiQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:38:16 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Benoit Lourdelet Cc: Serge Hallyn , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , lxc-users References: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:38:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Benoit Lourdelet's message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:09:29 +0000") Message-ID: <87vc8ldcy7.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18zjjZxttxfuARfpX9ReewMssRYo9e8crU= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.154.105 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 1.2 XMSubMetaSxObfu_03 Obfuscated Sexy Noun-People * 1.0 XMSubMetaSx_00 1+ Sexy Words X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Benoit Lourdelet X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [Lxc-users] Containers slow to start after 1600 X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1640 Lines: 51 Benoit Lourdelet writes: > Hello, > > The measurement has been done with kernel 3.8.2. > > Linux ieng-serv06 3.7.9 #3 SMP Wed Feb 27 02:38:58 PST 2013 x86_64 x86_64 > x86_64 GNU/Linux Two different kernel versions? > What information would you like to see on the kernel ? The question is where is the kernel spending it's time. So profiling information should help us see that. Something like. $ cat > test-script.sh << 'EOF' #!/bin/bash for i in $(seq 1 2000) ; do ip link add a$i type veth peer name b$i done EOF $ perf record -a -g test-script.sh $ perf report I don't do anywhere enough work with perf to remember what good options are. You definititely don't want to time anything you are doing something silly like asking ip link add to generate device names which is O(N^2) when you create one device at a time. And of course there is the interesting discrepency. Why can I add 5000 veth pairs in 120 seconds and it takes you 1123 seconds. Do you have a very slow cpu in your test environment? Or was your test asking the kernel to generate names. Once we know where the kernel is spending it's time we can look to see if there is anything that is easy to fix, and where to point you. Both my timing and yours indicates that there is something taking O(N^2) time in there. So it would at least be interesting to see what that something is. 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/