public inbox for linux-smp@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
>



  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox