From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3vHbQH2fkgzDqpM for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:22:31 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v177If6I027203 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:22:29 -0500 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28eupseg1t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:22:29 -0500 Received: from localhost by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 00:22:28 -0700 Subject: Re: [RFC] implement QUEUED spinlocks on powerpc To: Eric Dumazet References: <1485968734.6360.154.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <1485981445.4850.8.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <87y3xpb5li.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <4206026c-f659-d690-b6b2-31d1cedf55cb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Eric Dumazet , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Kevin Hao , Torsten Duwe , Pan Xinhui From: panxinhui Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:22:18 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Message-Id: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 在 2017/2/7 下午2:46, Eric Dumazet 写道: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:21 PM, panxinhui wrote: > >> hi all >> I do some netperf tests and get some benchmark results. >> I also attach my test script and netperf-result(Excel) >> >> There are two machine. one runs netserver and the other runs netperf >> benchmark. 1000Mbps network is connected with them. >> >> #ip link infomation >> 2: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state >> UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 >> link/ether ba:68:9c:14:32:02 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >> >> According to the results, there is not much performance gap with each other. >> And as we are only testing the throughput, the pvqspinlock shows the >> overhead of its pv stuff. but qspinlock shows a little improvement than >> spinlock. My simple summary in this testcase is >> qspinlock > spinlock > pvqspinlock. >> >> when run 200 concurrent netperf, I paste the total throughput here. >> >> concurrent runners| total throughput | variance >> ------------------------------------------- >> spinlock | 199 | 66882.8 | 89.93 >> ------------------------------------------- >> qspinlock | 199 | 66350.4 | 72.0239 >> ------------------------------------------- >> pvqspinlock | 199 | 64740.5 | 85.7837 >> >> You could see more data in nerperf.xlsx >> >> thanks >> xinhui > > > Hi xinhui > > 1Gbit NIC is too slow for this use case. I would try a 10Gbit NIC at least... > > Alternatively, you could use loopback interface. (netperf -H 127.0.0.1) > > tc qd add dev lo root pfifo limit 10000 > great, thanks xinhui