Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264218AbTF0Lmz (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:42:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264219AbTF0Lmy (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:42:54 -0400 Received: from mail.atr.bydgoszcz.pl ([212.122.192.35]:46792 "EHLO mail.atr.bydgoszcz.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264208AbTF0Lms (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:42:48 -0400 From: "adamski" To: "Robert Olsson" Cc: , Subject: RE: How to do kernel packet forwarding performance analysys - please comment on my method Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:56:23 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <16124.11592.136156.61126@robur.slu.se> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4925.2800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2431 Lines: 76 I agree the term forwarding is vague - this is problably my english imprecission... I mean timing the whole packet path: strating from irq handing through putting into backlog, picking from backlog, handling packet to higher layers (3), dealing with packet header processing (CRC, TTL etc), lookup, classification (for output queueing), forwarding, puting packet to output queue, tx_queue, and hard_dev_xmit et least.... this is what I would like to measure/benchmark (sorry my imprecise english usage). I would like to see how packet size influences certain operations (as mentioned earlier) etc.... let's say having as the output the functions called with its timings ... i would like to start two flows through linux router: PHB EF and BE PHB.. like voip and ftp or so... than i want to analyse what exactly happens ... since my theoretical analysys show delays (or latencies - from packet entering the NIC to going out of the outgoing interface) of hundereds of usec (~200us) while experiments shows 5-10ms !!!!! with CBQ (configured like CBWFQ and LLQ) this is it any help welcomed regards adam -----Original Message----- From: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Robert Olsson Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 1:41 PM To: Adam Flizikowski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-net@vger.kernel.org Subject: How to do kernel packet forwarding performance analysys - please comment on my method Adam Flizikowski writes: > > Hello, > > I want to analyze how much time is spent on forwarding process in linux > kernel. > > This is second post but the matter is very important to me. I am dealing > with this for few months now. Hello! "time spent on forwarding" is very vague. Raw forwarding capacity use to be measured in pps (packets per second) and it depends on many things beside hardware as packet size, routing table size, new flows/s etc. You can look at (o)profiles during forwarding. Cheers. --ro - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - 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/