From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752440AbXCAOYr (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:24:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752444AbXCAOYr (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:24:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51886 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752440AbXCAOYq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:24:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:16:37 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov , Pavel Machek , Theodore Tso , Linus Torvalds , Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , Zach Brown , "David S. Miller" , Suparna Bhattacharya , Davide Libenzi , Jens Axboe , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3 Message-ID: <20070301141637.GA20006@elte.hu> References: <20070301095402.GA14603@elte.hu> <20070301131118.GA30228@elte.hu> <20070301133018.GB30177@2ka.mipt.ru> <200703011519.20001.dada1@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703011519.20001.dada1@cosmosbay.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Eric Dumazet wrote: > I can tell you that the problem (at least on my machine) comes from : > > gettimeofday(&tm, NULL); > > in evserver_epoll.c yeah, that's another difference - especially if it's something like an Athlon64 and gettimeofday falls back to pm-timer, that could explain the performance difference. That's why i repeatedly asked Evgeniy to use the /very same/ client function for both the epoll and the kevent test and redo the measurements. The numbers are still highly suspect - and we are already down from the prior claim of kevent being almost twice as fast to a 25% difference. Ingo