From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
To: Joubert Berger <joubertb@gmail.com>
Cc: bridge@lists.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge] SMP vs UNP performance
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:19:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060827211912.57f45ee8@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <82b0add70608270705t7dc2bb67h108317b34cdc12f3@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:05:01 -0400
"Joubert Berger" <joubertb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was running a frame loss test the other day against an rhel4 smp
> kernel and a non-smp kernel. I noticed I was getting better numbers
> when I ran the non-smp kernel. I was surprised by that. Anyone have
> any insight into this? I am running this with e1000 dirvers.
Turning NAPI on/off might change the numbers slightly.
> I also ran a test where I ran the smp kernel with hyper threading
> turned on and off. There, the frame loss numbers were worse when
> hyper threading was turned off. I would not have thought that having
> hyperthreading turned off would make such a big difference.
>
> Just trying to make sense of these numbers :-)
>
> --joubert
Forwarding packets is inherently single threaded, the additional CPU's
can't really make it any faster. They can only cause additional cache
misses and locking overhead. The additional CPU's might help if you
performed a bidirectional or multiple interface test. Forwarding packets
shouldn't normally CPU bound, it is limited by the bus and interrupt rate.
If you are doing lots of firewalling that can change.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-28 4:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-27 14:05 [Bridge] SMP vs UNP performance Joubert Berger
2006-08-28 4:19 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2006-08-29 23:01 ` Joubert Berger
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=20060827211912.57f45ee8@localhost.localdomain \
--to=shemminger@osdl.org \
--cc=bridge@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=joubertb@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox