From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>
To: Michael Lindner <mikel@att.net>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Dan Maas <dmaas@dcine.com>,
Edgar Toernig <froese@gmx.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:54:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3AD1CD13.F1A917FA@lig.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa.nc2eokv.1dj8r80@ifi.uio.no> <fa.dcei62v.1s5scos@ifi.uio.no> <015e01c082ac$4bf9c5e0$0701a8c0@morph> <3A69361F.EBBE76AA@att.net> <20010120200727.A1069@metastasis.f00f.org> <3A694254.B52AE20B@att.net> <3A6A09F2.8E5150E@gmx.de> <022f01c08342$088f67b0$0701a8c0@morph> <20010121133433.A1112@metastasis.f00f.org> <3A6A558D.5E0CF29E@att.net>
An old thread, but important to get these fundamental performance
numbers up there:
2.4.2 on an 800mhz PIII Sceptre laptop w/ 512MB ram:
elapsed time for 100000 pingpongs is
3.81327
100000/3.81256
~26229.09541095746689888159
10000/.379912
~26321.88506812103855629724
26300 compares to 8000/sec. quite well ;-) You didn't give specs for
your test machine unfortunately.
Since this tests both 'sides' of an application communication, it
indicates a 'null transaction' rate of twice that.
This was typical cpu usage on a triple run of 10000:
CPU states: 7.2% user, 92.7% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
sdw
Michael Lindner wrote:
>
> OK, 2.4.0 kernel installed, and a new set of numbers:
>
> test kernel ping-pongs/s. @ total CPU util w/SOL_NDELAY
> sample (2 skts) 2.2.18 100 @ 0.1% 800 @ 1%
> sample (1 skt) 2.2.18 8000 @ 100% 8000 @ 50%
> real app 2.2.18 100 @ 0.1% 800 @ 1%
>
> sample (2 skts) 2.4.0 8000 @ 50% 8000 @ 50%
> sample (1 skt) 2.4.0 10000 @ 50% 10000 @ 50%
> real app 2.4.0 1200 @ 50% 1200 @ 50%
>
> real app Windows 2K 4000 @ 100%
>
> The two points that still seem strange to me are:
>
> 1. The 1 socket case is still 25% faster than the 2 socket case in 2.4.0
> (in 2.2.18 the 1 socket case was 10x faster).
>
> 2. Linux never devotes more than 50% of the CPU (average over a long
> run) to the two processes (25% to each process, with the rest of the
> time idle).
>
> I'd really love to show that Linux is a viable platform for our SW, and
> I think it would be doable if I could figure out how to get the other
> 50% of my CPU involved. An "strace -rT" of the real app on 2.4.0 looks
> like this for each ping/pong.
>
> 0.052371 send(7, "\0\0\0
> \177\0\0\1\3243\0\0\0\2\4\236\216\341\0\0\v\277"..., 32, 0) = 32
> <0.000529>
> 0.000882 rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, ~[], [RT_0], 8) = 0 <0.000021>
> 0.000242 rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [RT_0], NULL, 8) = 0
> <0.000021>
> 0.000173 select(8, [3 4 6 7], NULL, NULL, NULL) = 1 (in [6])
> <0.000047>
> 0.000328 read(6, "\0\0\0 ", 4) = 4 <0.000031>
> 0.000179 read(6,
> "\177\0\0\1\3242\0\0\0\2\4\236\216\341\0\0\7\327\177\0\0"..., 28) = 28
> <0.000075>
>
> --
> Mike Lindner
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax
Dec2000
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-09 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.nc2eokv.1dj8r80@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.dcei62v.1s5scos@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <015e01c082ac$4bf9c5e0$0701a8c0@morph>
2001-01-20 6:54 ` PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 7:07 ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-20 7:46 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 21:58 ` Edgar Toernig
2001-01-21 0:35 ` Dan Maas
2001-01-21 0:34 ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-21 1:22 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-21 1:29 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-21 3:20 ` Michael Lindner
2001-04-09 14:54 ` Stephen D. Williams [this message]
2001-04-09 19:16 ` James Antill
2001-04-10 18:29 ` Stephen D. Williams
2001-04-10 20:25 ` James Antill
2001-04-11 21:03 ` Stephen D. Williams
2001-04-12 0:09 ` James Antill
2001-01-24 20:31 ` Boris Dragovic
[not found] ` <3A694357.1A7C6AAC@att.net>
2001-01-20 9:41 ` Dan Maas
2001-01-20 17:26 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-24 23:56 Bernd Eckenfels
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-01-20 10:53 Bernd Eckenfels
2001-01-19 20:47 Michael Lindner
2001-01-19 23:20 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-20 2:30 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 3:27 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-20 4:37 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 12:26 ` Martin MaD Douda
2001-01-20 11:39 ` Bjorn Wesen
2001-01-19 23:31 ` Chris Wedgwood
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=3AD1CD13.F1A917FA@lig.net \
--to=sdw@lig.net \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=dmaas@dcine.com \
--cc=froese@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikel@att.net \
/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.