Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423870AbWKHXBL (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:01:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423869AbWKHXBK (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:01:10 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:21167 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423864AbWKHXBI (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:01:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:00:07 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com Cc: Olaf Kirch , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@sunset.davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown Message-ID: <20061108150007.49eaea68@freekitty> In-Reply-To: <1163023652.10806.203.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1162924354.10806.172.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1163001318.3138.346.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20061108162955.GA4364@suse.de> <1163011132.10806.189.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061108221028.GA16889@suse.de> <1163023652.10806.203.camel@localhost.localdomain> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.0-rc3 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i486-pc-linux-gnu) 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: 1356 Lines: 38 On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:32 -0800 Tim Chen wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:10 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote: > > > > > In fixing performance issues, the most obvious explanation isn't always > > the right one. It's quite possible you're right, sure. > > > > What I'm saying though is that it doesn't rhyme with what I've seen of > > Volanomark - we ran 2.6.16 on a 4p Intel box for instance and it didn't > > come close to saturating a Gigabit pipe before it maxed out on CPU load. > > > > I am running Volanomark in a loopback mode on a 2P woodcrest box > (4 cores). So the configuration is a bit different. > > In my testing, the CPU utilization is at 100%. So > increase in ACKs will cost CPU to devote more > time to process those ACKs and reduce throughput. > > > > > You could count the number of outbound packets dropped on the server. > > > > As I'm running in loopback mode, there are no dropped packets. > Optimizing for loopback is perversion; perversion can be fun but it gets to be a obsession then it's sick. -- Stephen Hemminger - 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/