"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton writes:
> > Changing the memory copy function did make some difference
> > in my setup. But the performance drop on send(8k) is only approx 10%,
> > partly because I changed the way I'm testing it - `cyclesoak' is
> > now penalised more heavily by cache misses, and amount of cache
> > missing which networking causes cyclesoak is basically the same,
> > whether or not the ZC patch is applied.
>
> Ok ok ok, but are we at the point where there are no sizable "over the
> wire" performance anomalies anymore? That is what is important, what
> are the localhost bandwidth measurements looking like for you now
> with/without the patch applied?
Using 2.4.2-pre3 + zerocopy-2.4.2p3-1.diff
All numbers in megs/sec
zcc/zcs is doing read(8k)/send(8k) to localhost.
On the dual 500MHz PII:
zcc/zcs bw_tcp
Unpatched: 70 66
Patched: 67 66
Single 500MHz PII:
Unpatched: 58 54
Patched: 49 52
Single 650MHz PIII Coppermine:
Unpatched: 140 180-250
Patched: 107 159
With or without ZC, there is Wierd Stuff happening with local
networking. Throughput is all over the place.
- With zcs reporting throughput once per second, the numbers were jumping
around by +/-10%. Had to bump the averaging period to 5 seconds to
make much sense of it. With a real network, they're rock solid.
- The difference between the PII and PIII is far beyond anything I see
with any other workload.
- The difference between zcc/zcs and bw_tcp on the PIII is interesting.
It's still apparent when zcc/zcs uses a 64k transfer buffer, like bw_tcp.
zcc/zcs is doing file system reads, whereas bw_tcp isn't. But the
discrepancy isn't there on the PII.
- On the unpatched kernel, I saw one bw_tcp run after a reboot report
410 Mbytes/sec. Thereafter it's around 210. err.. make that 180. No,
make that 254. WTF?
Amongst all the noise it seems there's a problem on the PIII but
not the PII.
It's getting very lonely testing this stuff. It would be useful if
someone else could help out - at least running the bw_tcp tests. It's
pretty simple:
bw_tcp -s ; bw_tcp 0
> I want to reach a known state where we can conclude "over the wire is
> about as good or better than before, but there is a cpu/cache usage
> penalty from the zerocopy stuff".
>
> This is important. It lets us get to the next stage which is to
> use your tools, numbers, and some profiling to see if we can get
> some of that cpu overhead back.
Seems, with the 100baseT NIC the performance drop on the Coppermine
is only half that of the Mendocino. I _think_ the Mendocino is
only 4-way associative, but reports vary on this. Coppermine is 8-way.
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
