From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>
To: Michael Lindner <mikel@att.net>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Dan Maas <dmaas@dcine.com>,
Edgar Toernig <froese@gmx.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:54:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3AD1CD13.F1A917FA@lig.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa.nc2eokv.1dj8r80@ifi.uio.no> <fa.dcei62v.1s5scos@ifi.uio.no> <015e01c082ac$4bf9c5e0$0701a8c0@morph> <3A69361F.EBBE76AA@att.net> <20010120200727.A1069@metastasis.f00f.org> <3A694254.B52AE20B@att.net> <3A6A09F2.8E5150E@gmx.de> <022f01c08342$088f67b0$0701a8c0@morph> <20010121133433.A1112@metastasis.f00f.org> <3A6A558D.5E0CF29E@att.net>
An old thread, but important to get these fundamental performance
numbers up there:
2.4.2 on an 800mhz PIII Sceptre laptop w/ 512MB ram:
elapsed time for 100000 pingpongs is
3.81327
100000/3.81256
~26229.09541095746689888159
10000/.379912
~26321.88506812103855629724
26300 compares to 8000/sec. quite well ;-) You didn't give specs for
your test machine unfortunately.
Since this tests both 'sides' of an application communication, it
indicates a 'null transaction' rate of twice that.
This was typical cpu usage on a triple run of 10000:
CPU states: 7.2% user, 92.7% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
sdw
Michael Lindner wrote:
>
> OK, 2.4.0 kernel installed, and a new set of numbers:
>
> test kernel ping-pongs/s. @ total CPU util w/SOL_NDELAY
> sample (2 skts) 2.2.18 100 @ 0.1% 800 @ 1%
> sample (1 skt) 2.2.18 8000 @ 100% 8000 @ 50%
> real app 2.2.18 100 @ 0.1% 800 @ 1%
>
> sample (2 skts) 2.4.0 8000 @ 50% 8000 @ 50%
> sample (1 skt) 2.4.0 10000 @ 50% 10000 @ 50%
> real app 2.4.0 1200 @ 50% 1200 @ 50%
>
> real app Windows 2K 4000 @ 100%
>
> The two points that still seem strange to me are:
>
> 1. The 1 socket case is still 25% faster than the 2 socket case in 2.4.0
> (in 2.2.18 the 1 socket case was 10x faster).
>
> 2. Linux never devotes more than 50% of the CPU (average over a long
> run) to the two processes (25% to each process, with the rest of the
> time idle).
>
> I'd really love to show that Linux is a viable platform for our SW, and
> I think it would be doable if I could figure out how to get the other
> 50% of my CPU involved. An "strace -rT" of the real app on 2.4.0 looks
> like this for each ping/pong.
>
> 0.052371 send(7, "\0\0\0
> \177\0\0\1\3243\0\0\0\2\4\236\216\341\0\0\v\277"..., 32, 0) = 32
> <0.000529>
> 0.000882 rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, ~[], [RT_0], 8) = 0 <0.000021>
> 0.000242 rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [RT_0], NULL, 8) = 0
> <0.000021>
> 0.000173 select(8, [3 4 6 7], NULL, NULL, NULL) = 1 (in [6])
> <0.000047>
> 0.000328 read(6, "\0\0\0 ", 4) = 4 <0.000031>
> 0.000179 read(6,
> "\177\0\0\1\3242\0\0\0\2\4\236\216\341\0\0\7\327\177\0\0"..., 28) = 28
> <0.000075>
>
> --
> Mike Lindner
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax
Dec2000
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-09 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.nc2eokv.1dj8r80@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.dcei62v.1s5scos@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <015e01c082ac$4bf9c5e0$0701a8c0@morph>
2001-01-20 6:54 ` PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 7:07 ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-20 7:46 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 21:58 ` Edgar Toernig
2001-01-21 0:35 ` Dan Maas
2001-01-21 0:34 ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-21 1:22 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-21 1:29 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-21 3:20 ` Michael Lindner
2001-04-09 14:54 ` Stephen D. Williams [this message]
2001-04-09 19:16 ` James Antill
2001-04-10 18:29 ` Stephen D. Williams
2001-04-10 20:25 ` James Antill
2001-04-11 21:03 ` Stephen D. Williams
2001-04-12 0:09 ` James Antill
2001-01-24 20:31 ` Boris Dragovic
[not found] ` <3A694357.1A7C6AAC@att.net>
2001-01-20 9:41 ` Dan Maas
2001-01-20 17:26 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-24 23:56 Bernd Eckenfels
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-01-20 10:53 Bernd Eckenfels
2001-01-19 20:47 Michael Lindner
2001-01-19 23:20 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-20 2:30 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 3:27 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-20 4:37 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 12:26 ` Martin MaD Douda
2001-01-20 11:39 ` Bjorn Wesen
2001-01-19 23:31 ` Chris Wedgwood
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=3AD1CD13.F1A917FA@lig.net \
--to=sdw@lig.net \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=dmaas@dcine.com \
--cc=froese@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikel@att.net \
/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