Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:23:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:23:07 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:63134 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:23:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:23:23 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Avery Fay cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Gigabit/SMP performance problem Message-ID: <35670000.1041888203@flay> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 912 Lines: 23 > Well, judging by the fact that a UP kernel can route more traffic (and > consequently more interrupts p/s) than an SMP kernel, I think that one cpu Umm ... what are you comparing here? How many CPUs on your SMP kernel? If I have an 8 CPU machine, you think it can handle less traffic than a 1-cpu machine running a UP kernel? > can probably handle all of the interrupts. Really the issue I'm trying to > solve is not routing performance, but rather the fact that SMP routing > performance is worse while using twice the cpu time (2 cpu's at around 95% > vs. 1 at around 95%). Can you mail out kernel profiles? What's burning all the time here? Thanks, M. - 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/