Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751998AbWISTkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:40:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751997AbWISTkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:40:31 -0400 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:23720 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751995AbWISTka (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:40:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20060919.124034.78165098.davem@davemloft.net> To: dlang@digitalinsight.com Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, master@sectorb.msk.ru, ak@suse.de, hawk@diku.dk, harry@atmos.washington.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20 From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20060918211759.GB31746@tentacle.sectorb.msk.ru> <20060918220038.GB14322@ms2.inr.ac.ru> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 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: 1595 Lines: 32 From: David Lang Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:57:04 -0700 (PDT) > yes tcpdump may be wrong in requesting timestamps (in most cases it > probably is, but in some cases it's doing exactly what the sysadmin > wants it to do), but I don't think that many sysadmins would expect > this much of a performance hit. there should be some way to tell > the system to ignore requests for timestamps so that a badly behaved > program cannot cripple the system this way (and preferably something > that doesn't require a full SELinux/capabilities implementation) tcpdump is not wrong in requesting timestamps, and there are many legitimate userland programs that call gettimeofday() for internal timestamping _A LOT_. Such as X11 clients. The real fact of the matter is that these x86_64 systems are using the slowest possible time-of-day implementation, simply because it's "too hard" currently to properly probe the most efficient mechanism which is present in the system. If getting the time of day is at the top of the profiles in the packet input path, and we're only capturing a timestamp once per packet, something is _VERY VERY_ wrong with the timestamp implementation because think of all of the other seriously expensive things that happen on a per-packet basis which should absolutely dwarf timestamping in terms of cost. - 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/