Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754435Ab3HVULh (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:11:37 -0400 Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:56698 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754402Ab3HVULg (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:11:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:11:35 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Eliezer Tamir Cc: David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Eilon Greenstein , Amir Vadai , Eric Dumazet , Willem de Bruijn , Eliezer Tamir Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: epoll support for busy poll Message-ID: <20130822201135.GA4088@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: <20130821103954.30607.6819.stgit@ladj378.jer.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130821103954.30607.6819.stgit@ladj378.jer.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 862 Lines: 21 Eliezer Tamir wrote: > Performance: > using sockperf, Intel X520 NICs, > Supermicro 6026TT-BTF systems with E5-2690 Xeon CPUs > 100 UDP sockets avg. latency 5.756 (std-dev 0.510) > 1k UDP sockets avg. latency 5.780 (std-dev 0.536) > 10k UDP sockets avg. latency 6.269 (std-dev 0.611) How does this compare to with normal poll on this system? In other words, what advantage is there to using epoll instead of poll when busy looping? epoll and busy_poll seem to be opposites. epoll inherently has higher latency than normal poll, but provides stable performance with many more FDs. -- 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/