From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@daemonizer.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano@broadcom.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:45:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705272145.00796.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705272125.25506.maxi@daemonizer.de>
On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> 2.6.22-rc3:
>
> [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec
> [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633
> [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 7.27 MBytes 967 Kbits/sec
Why do we have two different measurements here? Is one TX and one RX?
Which one?
> koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1
> PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.243 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.234 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.235 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.230 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.317 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.228 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
>
> --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8997ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.228/0.242/0.317/0.031 ms
>
> System responsiveness was the same as with 2.6.21.1.
>
> wget got 11.23M/s, again same as 2.6.21.1.
>
>
> 2.6.22-rc2-mm1:
>
> [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 42198 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> [ 5] 0.0-60.1 sec 402 MBytes 56.1 Mbits/sec
> [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 48598
> [ 4] 0.0-63.0 sec 177 MBytes 23.6 Mbits/sec
So with -mm (with ssb) you actually get better performace
then with plain 2.6.22-rc3?
Can you elaborate a bit more about what you get an what you expect
on which kernel?
--
Greetings Michael.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-wireless"
<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Stephen Hemminger
<shemminger-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme-f8uhVLnGfZaxAyOMLChx1axOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:45:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705272145.00796.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705272125.25506.maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> 2.6.22-rc3:
>
> [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec
> [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633
> [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 7.27 MBytes 967 Kbits/sec
Why do we have two different measurements here? Is one TX and one RX?
Which one?
> koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1
> PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.243 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.234 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.235 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.230 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.317 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.228 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
>
> --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8997ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.228/0.242/0.317/0.031 ms
>
> System responsiveness was the same as with 2.6.21.1.
>
> wget got 11.23M/s, again same as 2.6.21.1.
>
>
> 2.6.22-rc2-mm1:
>
> [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 42198 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> [ 5] 0.0-60.1 sec 402 MBytes 56.1 Mbits/sec
> [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 48598
> [ 4] 0.0-63.0 sec 177 MBytes 23.6 Mbits/sec
So with -mm (with ssb) you actually get better performace
then with plain 2.6.22-rc3?
Can you elaborate a bit more about what you get an what you expect
on which kernel?
--
Greetings Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-27 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-26 0:24 b44: regression in 2.6.22 Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-26 3:51 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-26 17:01 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 19:25 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 19:25 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 19:45 ` Michael Buesch [this message]
2007-05-27 19:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 20:36 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 20:36 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 20:46 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 20:46 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:46 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:46 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:13 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:13 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:50 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:50 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 22:15 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 22:15 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 0:24 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 0:40 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 0:40 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 10:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 10:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 14:09 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:09 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 15:14 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:14 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 15:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 15:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 17:44 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 19:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 20:55 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 21:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-29 18:28 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 18:28 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 13:58 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 13:58 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 17:23 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 17:23 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-03 16:26 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 6:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 6:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 16:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 16:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:59 ` iperf: performance regression (was b44 driver problem?) Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 17:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 17:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 17:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 19:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-04 19:47 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 20:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 20:52 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 20:52 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 10:49 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 14:12 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:12 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 14:14 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 20:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 20:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-29 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-29 21:05 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 21:05 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-29 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-29 21:36 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 21:36 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-30 10:45 ` Michael Buesch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-05-28 23:00 Uwe Bugla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705272145.00796.mb@bu3sch.de \
--to=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxi@daemonizer.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zambrano@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.