Re: >10% performance degradation since 2.6.18

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...>
Cc: <andi@...>, <arjan@...>, <matthew@...>, <jens.axboe@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <douglas.w.styner@...>, <chinang.ma@...>, <terry.o.prickett@...>, <matthew.r.wilcox@...>, <Eric.Moore@...>, <DL-MPTFusionLinux@...>, <netdev@...>
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 - 4:44 pm

Herbert Xu wrote:

Is this a blind guess, or is there real world testing across multiple 
setups behind this answer?

Consider a 2-package, quad-core system with 3 userland threads actively 
performing network communication, plus periodic, low levels of network 
activity from OS utilities (such as nightly 'yum upgrade').

That is essentially an under-utilized 8-CPU system.  For such a case, it 
seems like a power win to idle or power down a few cores, or maybe even 
an entire package.

Efficient power usage means scaling _down_ when activity decreases.  A 
blind "distribute network activity across all CPUs" policy does not 
appear to be responsive to that type of situation.



Same question:  blind guess, or do you have numbers?

Consider two competing CPU hogs:  a kernel with tons of netfilter tables 
and rules, plus an application that uses a lot of CPU.

Can you not reach a threshold where it makes more sense to split kernel 
and userland work onto different CPUs?



That seems to presume it is impossible to reprogram the NIC RX queue 
selection rules?

If you can add a new 'flow' to a NIC hardware RX queue, surely you can 
imagine a remove + add operation for a migrated 'flow'...  and thus, at 
least on the NIC hardware level, flows can follow processes.

	Jeff


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Jeff Garzik, (Sat Jul 4, 5:19 am)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Herbert Xu, (Sun Jul 5, 12:01 am)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Rick Jones, (Mon Jul 6, 1:00 pm)
RE: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Ma, Chinang, (Mon Jul 6, 1:36 pm)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Matthew Wilcox, (Mon Jul 6, 1:42 pm)
RE: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Ma, Chinang, (Mon Jul 6, 1:57 pm)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Matthew Wilcox, (Mon Jul 6, 2:05 pm)
RE: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Ma, Chinang, (Mon Jul 6, 2:48 pm)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Matthew Wilcox, (Mon Jul 6, 2:53 pm)
Re: >10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Jeff Garzik, (Sun Jul 5, 4:44 pm)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Andi Kleen, (Mon Jul 6, 4:45 am)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Herbert Xu, (Sun Jul 5, 9:19 pm)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Matthew Wilcox, (Sun Jul 5, 9:09 am)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Andi Kleen, (Mon Jul 6, 4:38 am)
Re: &gt;10% performance degradation since 2.6.18, Herbert Xu, (Sun Jul 5, 12:11 pm)