From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
haoki@redhat.com, mchan@broadcom.com, davidel@xmailserver.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:49:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49F9821C.5010802@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090429091130.GA27857@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
>
>> On uddpping, I had prior to the patch about 49000 wakeups per
>> second, and after patch about 26000 wakeups per second (matches
>> number of incoming udp messages per second)
>
> very nice. It might not show up as a real performance difference if
> the CPUs are not fully saturated during the test - but it could show
> up as a decrease in CPU utilization.
>
> Also, if you run the test via 'perf stat -a ./test.sh' you should
> see a reduction in instructions executed:
>
> aldebaran:~/linux/linux> perf stat -a sleep 1
>
> Performance counter stats for 'sleep':
>
> 16128.045994 task clock ticks (msecs)
> 12876 context switches (events)
> 219 CPU migrations (events)
> 186144 pagefaults (events)
> 20911802763 CPU cycles (events)
> 19309416815 instructions (events)
> 199608554 cache references (events)
> 19990754 cache misses (events)
>
> Wall-clock time elapsed: 1008.882282 msecs
>
> With -a it's measured system-wide, from start of test to end of test
> - the results will be a lot more stable (and relevant) statistically
> than wall-clock time or CPU usage measurements. (both of which are
> rather imprecise in general)
I tried this perf stuff and got strange results on a cpu burning bench,
saturating my 8 cpus with a "while (1) ;" loop
# perf stat -a sleep 10
Performance counter stats for 'sleep':
80334.709038 task clock ticks (msecs)
80638 context switches (events)
4 CPU migrations (events)
468 pagefaults (events)
160694681969 CPU cycles (events)
160127154810 instructions (events)
686393 cache references (events)
230117 cache misses (events)
Wall-clock time elapsed: 10041.531644 msecs
So its about 16069468196 cycles per second for 8 cpus
Divide by 8 to get 2008683524 cycles per second per cpu,
which is not 3000000000 (E5450 @ 3.00GHz)
It seems strange a "jmp myself" uses one unhalted cycle per instruction
and 0.5 halted cycle ...
Also, after using "perf stat", tbench results are 1778 MB/S
instead of 2610 MB/s. Even if no perf stat running.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-30 10:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-24 20:10 udp ping pong with various process bindings (and correct cpu mappings) Christoph Lameter
2009-04-24 21:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-25 15:47 ` [PATCH] net: Avoid extra wakeups of threads blocked in wait_for_packet() Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 9:04 ` David Miller
2009-04-26 10:46 ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 13:33 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-26 14:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 9:15 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 9:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 14:21 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-28 14:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 15:06 ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 19:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 20:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 20:14 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 20:33 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 20:49 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 21:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 21:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 9:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-30 10:49 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-04-30 11:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-30 14:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 16:07 ` [BUG] perf_counter: change cpu frequencies Eric Dumazet
2009-05-03 6:06 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-05-03 7:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-04 10:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 21:24 ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-29 7:20 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-29 7:35 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-29 7:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 7:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 8:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 9:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 10:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 12:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 13:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 15:53 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-04-28 9:26 ` [PATCH] net: Avoid extra wakeups of threads blocked in wait_for_packet() David Miller
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=49F9821C.5010802@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=haoki@redhat.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchan@broadcom.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@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.