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

  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