Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932473AbWBXUo4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751092AbWBXUo4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:56 -0500 Received: from mail.atl.external.lmco.com ([192.35.37.50]:58799 "EHLO enterprise.atl.lmco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751090AbWBXUo4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:56 -0500 Message-ID: <43FF7047.7060503@atl.lmco.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:55 -0500 From: Gautam H Thaker Organization: Lockheed Martin -- Advanced Technology Laboratories User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton Cc: Gautam H Thaker , mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ~5x greater CPU load for a networked application when using 2.6.15-rt15-smp vs. 2.6.12-1.1390_FC4 References: <43FE134C.6070600@atl.lmco.com> <20060223205851.GA24321@elte.hu> <20060224041145.5bcdbc97.akpm@osdl.org> <43FF675A.6080305@atl.lmco.com> <20060224123129.4ec024d4.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060224123129.4ec024d4.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1545 Lines: 35 Andrew Morton wrote: > Gautam H Thaker wrote: > >>>http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/#zc <- better ;) >> >> Andrew, >> >> I read the README for the "zc" tests. I wish Ingo can opine on which may be a >> better test. Also, i assume that I can run "zcs" and "zcc" on the same >> machine. I would do the tests with "send" instead of "sendfile". > > > Oh. I don't actually remember what zc does. I was actually referring to > `cyclesoak', which has proven to be a pretty accurate (or at least, > sensitive and repeatable) way of determining overall per-CPU system load. Yes, I should have been more clear. I meant to say that perhaps I should use the 4 combinations of OS configs (non-RT/RT x UniProc/SMP) and use zc and cyclesoak rather than do a 20 node test, but I believe I will need many nodes sending to my one "monitor" node to get this high packet receive rate of about 38,000/second. Lower rates involving only a single machine should also be capable of revealing conclusively that "RT-SMP" kernels are some factor heavier than non-RT-UniProc kernel. Anyway, I will do the tests. -- Gautam H. Thaker Distributed Processing Lab; Lockheed Martin Adv. Tech. Labs 3 Executive Campus; Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 856-792-9754, fax 856-792-9925 email: gthaker@atl.lmco.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/