From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: Avery Fay <avery_fay@symantec.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Gigabit/SMP performance problem
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 14:33:45 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030104033345.GC19888@krispykreme> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFC4D9AF0E.DA93F4D7-ON85256CA3.0058C567-85256CA3.00592873@symantec.com>
> I'm working with a dual xeon platform with 4 dual e1000 cards on different
> pci-x buses. I'm having trouble getting better performance with the second
> cpu enabled (ht disabled). With a UP kernel (redhat's 2.4.18), I can route
> about 2.9 gigabits/s at around 90% cpu utilization. With a SMP kernel
> (redhat's 2.4.18), I can route about 2.8 gigabits/s with both cpus at
> around 90% utilization. This suggests to me that the network code is
> serialized. I would expect one of two things from my understanding of the
> 2.4.x networking improvements (softirqs allowing execution on more than
> one cpu):
The Fujitsu guys have a nice summary of this:
http://www.labs.fujitsu.com/en/techinfo/linux/lse-0211/index.html
Skip forward to page 8.
Dont blame the networking code just yet :) Notice how worse UP vs SMP
performance is on the P4 compared to the P3?
This brings up another point, is a single CPU with hyperthreading worth
it? As Rusty will tell you, you need to compare it with a UP kernel
since it avoids all the locking overhead. I suspect for a lot of cases
HT will be a loss (imagine your case, comparing UP and one CPU HT)
Anton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-04 3:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-03 16:12 Gigabit/SMP performance problem Avery Fay
2003-01-03 18:05 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-03 21:49 ` Ron cooper
2003-01-03 21:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-03 21:20 ` Robert Olsson
2003-01-04 3:33 ` Anton Blanchard [this message]
2003-01-06 19:43 ` Jon Fraser
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-03 20:25 Avery Fay
2003-01-03 21:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-01-03 21:36 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-03 22:31 ` Andrew Theurer
[not found] <b8ce5e32.0301040439.7bdaa903@posting.google.com>
2003-01-06 18:27 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-01-06 19:09 ` Daniel Blueman
2003-01-06 19:26 ` Brian Tinsley
2003-01-06 20:25 Avery Fay
2003-01-06 20:29 Avery Fay
2003-01-06 21:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-07 17:19 ` Mike Black
2003-01-06 20:33 Avery Fay
2003-01-06 20:38 Avery Fay
2003-01-07 18:15 ` Robert Olsson
2003-01-08 12:17 Jon Burgess
2003-01-08 21:12 Feldman, Scott
2003-01-08 21:44 Ronciak, John
2003-01-09 12:49 ` Robert Olsson
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=20030104033345.GC19888@krispykreme \
--to=anton@samba.org \
--cc=avery_fay@symantec.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@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