On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 08:34 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 21:53 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:44:40AM +, Ilpo Jrvinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I tried to use bisect to locate the bad patch between 2.6.22 and
> > > > > 2.6.23-rc1,
> > > > > but the
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 21:53 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:44:40AM +, Ilpo J�rvinen wrote:
> >
> > > > I tried to use bisect to locate the bad patch between 2.6.22 and
> > > > 2.6.23-rc1,
> > > > but the bisected kernel wasn't stable and went crazy.
> >
> > TCP work bet
*) netperf/netserver support CPU affinity within themselves with the
global -T option to netperf. Is the result with taskset much different?
The equivalent to the above would be to run netperf with:
./netperf -T 0,7 ..
I checked the source codes and didn't find this option.
I use netperf V
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:44:40AM +, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> > > I tried to use bisect to locate the bad patch between 2.6.22 and
> > > 2.6.23-rc1,
> > > but the bisected kernel wasn't stable and went crazy.
>
> TCP work between that is very much non-existing.
Make sure you haven't switche
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 11:21 +0200, Ilpo J�rvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ilpo J�rvinen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of fact, 2.6.23 has about 6% regression and 2.6.24-rc
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > >
> > > As a matter of fact, 2.6.23 has about 6% regression and 2.6.24-rc's
> > > regression is between 16%~11%.
> > >
> > > I tried to use bi
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > The regression is:
> > 1)stoakley with 2 qual-core processors: 11%;
> > 2)Tulsa with 4 dual-core(+hyperThread) processors:13%;
> I have new update on this issue and also cc to netdev maillist.
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:56 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> >>The test command is:
> >>#sudo taskset -c 7 ./netserver
> >>#sudo taskset -c 0 ./netperf -t TCP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 50,3 -I 99,5
> >>-- -r 1,1
>
> A couple of comments/questions on the command lines:
Thanks for your kind comments.
>
The test command is:
#sudo taskset -c 7 ./netserver
#sudo taskset -c 0 ./netperf -t TCP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 50,3 -I 99,5 -- -r
1,1
A couple of comments/questions on the command lines:
*) netperf/netserver support CPU affinity within themselves with the
global -T option to netperf. Is th
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> The regression is:
> 1)stoakley with 2 qual-core processors: 11%;
> 2)Tulsa with 4 dual-core(+hyperThread) processors:13%;
I have new update on this issue and also cc to netdev maillist.
Thank David Miller for pointing me the netdev maillis
Nobody is going to look directly into networking regressions on lkml,
please at least CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] for networking issues.
Thank you.
--
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://vge
The regression is:
1)stoakley with 2 qual-core processors: 11%;
2)Tulsa with 4 dual-core(+hyperThread) processors:13%;
The test command is:
#sudo taskset -c 7 ./netserver
#sudo taskset -c 0 ./netperf -t TCP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 50,3 -I 99,5 -- -r
1,1
As a matter of fact, 2.6.23 has about 6%
12 matches
Mail list logo
