From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
To: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@linux.intel.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Eilon Greenstein <eilong@broadcom.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirv@mellanox.com>,
Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@gmail.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@tamir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: epoll support for busy poll
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:11:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130822201135.GA4088@dcvr.yhbt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130821103954.30607.6819.stgit@ladj378.jer.intel.com>
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Performance:
> using sockperf, Intel X520 NICs,
> Supermicro 6026TT-BTF systems with E5-2690 Xeon CPUs
> 100 UDP sockets avg. latency 5.756 (std-dev 0.510)
> 1k UDP sockets avg. latency 5.780 (std-dev 0.536)
> 10k UDP sockets avg. latency 6.269 (std-dev 0.611)
How does this compare to with normal poll on this system?
In other words, what advantage is there to using epoll instead of poll
when busy looping?
epoll and busy_poll seem to be opposites. epoll inherently has higher
latency than normal poll, but provides stable performance with many more
FDs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-22 20:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-21 10:39 [PATCH RFC net-next] net: epoll support for busy poll Eliezer Tamir
2013-08-21 13:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-08-21 15:09 ` Eliezer Tamir
2013-08-22 20:11 ` Eric Wong [this message]
2013-08-23 7:25 ` Eliezer Tamir
2013-08-23 20:36 ` Eric Wong
2013-08-25 21:30 ` Amir Vadai
2013-08-26 6:03 ` Eliezer Tamir
2013-08-27 14:11 ` Amir Vadai
2013-08-22 20:14 ` David Miller
2013-08-23 7:06 ` Eliezer Tamir
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=20130822201135.GA4088@dcvr.yhbt.net \
--to=normalperson@yhbt.net \
--cc=amirv@mellanox.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=eilong@broadcom.com \
--cc=eliezer.tamir@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eliezer@tamir.org.il \
--cc=erdnetdev@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.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.