From: Klaas Zweck <khz@tzi.org>
To: "Peter H. Koenig" <Peter.Koenig@phys.uni-paderborn.de>
Cc: linux-smp <linux-smp@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: About IO-APIC - General question
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:47:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CBC0F3D.3010806@tzi.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3CBBC3D6.1947D011@phys.uni-paderborn.de
hi peter,
i made some test on a linux-smp machine(kernel 2.4.9).
i had one process just doing some calculation on prim numbers.
i locked this to cpu 1 and disabled all interrupts on cpu 1.
( in fact i routed all to cpu 0 )
then i started a make -j4 bzImage job in a remote
shell to produce file i/o and network interrupts.
i restricted all processes except the one doing the calculation
from cpu 1 and delivered all interrupts only to cpu 0.
i had an total runtime for the calculating process of:
(with interrupts routed only to one cpu)
voyager:~/# time ./rt_prim_ohne_syscalls
real 0m42.111s
user 0m41.870s
sys 0m0.240s
voyager:~/# time ./rt_prim_ohne_syscalls
real 0m40.268s
user 0m40.190s
sys 0m0.080s
voyager:~/# time ./rt_prim_ohne_syscalls
real 0m40.068s
user 0m40.000s
sys 0m0.070s
average :
real: 0m40.815s
in the same scenario as above but with irqs routed to all cpus
the calculationg process still locked to cpu 1 had a runtime of:
voyager:~/# time ./rt_prim_ohne_syscalls -rt
real 0m39.712s
user 0m39.680s
sys 0m0.030s
voyager:~/# time ./rt_prim_ohne_syscalls -rt
real 0m39.998s
user 0m39.720s
sys 0m0.270s
voyager:~/# time ./rt_prim_ohne_syscalls -rt
real 0m39.950s
user 0m39.900s
sys 0m0.050s
average:
real 0m39.886s
so its a measurable but small performance plus of 2.5 %.
but since i worked remote just network and i/o irqs occeured there were
no keyboard or mouse irqs in the system.
hope it helps a bit,
greetings,
klaas
Peter H. Koenig wrote:
>Hello,
>
>from how I understood APIC it purpose on an SMP machine is to give all
>processors the possibility to handle interrupts instead of one processor
>responsible for them. So when running two jobs on an SMP machine a
>non-working IO-APIC would turn into a performance disadvantage. Do I get
>this right ? If yes, does anybody have a clue, how much difference this
>could make when running IO-intensive programms ? single or two digit
>percentages ?
>
>Thanks
>Pete
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-smp" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-16 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-16 6:25 About IO-APIC - General question Peter H. Koenig
2002-04-16 11:47 ` Klaas Zweck [this message]
2002-05-03 16:27 ` Peter H. Koenig
2002-05-03 22:13 ` Mark Hounschell
2002-05-18 10:59 ` Peter H. Koenig
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=3CBC0F3D.3010806@tzi.org \
--to=khz@tzi.org \
--cc=Peter.Koenig@phys.uni-paderborn.de \
--cc=linux-smp@vger.kernel.org \
/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.