* lmbench 2.4.20-8(RH9), 2.4.20, 2.6.0
@ 2003-12-20 3:45 Huo Zhigang(霍志刚)
2003-12-20 3:55 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Huo Zhigang(霍志刚) @ 2003-12-20 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Howdy,
Is the network performance of 2.6.0 so bad or my test
totally wrong?
Could anyone tell me how to dig into performance
optimization of linux?
=================================================================
L M B E N C H 3 . 0 S U M M A R Y
------------------------------------
(Alpha software, do not distribute)
Basic system parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Description Mhz tlb cache mem scal
pages line par load
bytes
--------- ------------- ----------------------- ---- ----- ----- ------ ----
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- i686-pc-linux-gnu 1595 14 128 1.6100 1
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 i686-pc-linux-gnu 1592 66 128 1.6700 1
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 i686-pc-linux-gnu 1572 63 128 1.6600 1
Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz null null open slct sig sig fork exec sh
call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 1595 0.99 1.09 3.25 4.54 8.41 1.57 4.25 194. 671. 3273
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 1592 1.01 1.11 14.5 15.9 10.4 1.58 5.42 185. 752. 3739
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 1572 0.29 0.75 17.9 25.9 10.8 1.07 16.1 336. 1223 5075
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~??
Basic integer operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS intgr intgr intgr intgr intgr
bit add mul div mod
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 0.3200 0.3200 8.8500 36.8 41.3
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 0.3200 0.3100 8.8400 36.6 40.5
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 0.3200 0.3200 9.0300 37.7 42.4
Basic float operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS float float float float
add mul div bogo
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 3.1400 4.3900 27.5 27.1
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 3.3800 4.3900 27.1 27.1
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 3.1900 4.4800 27.4 27.4
Basic double operations - times in nanoseconds - smaller is better
------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS double double double double
add mul div bogo
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 3.1500 4.4300 27.1 27.1
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 3.1300 4.3700 29.3 27.1
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 3.1900 4.6600 27.4 27.5
Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K
ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 1.6600 2.0400 2.0900 3.1900 24.4 6.05000 34.6
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 1.7300 0.8800 14.7 0.10000 24.9
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 1.5600 1.6500 1.9200 4.6500 30.5 10.0 40.4
*Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP
ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn
--------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 1.660 8.525 13.3 20.7 60.
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 1.730 7.541 13.5 63.8 73.
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 1.560 9.622 73.4 132.6 451.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~??
File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page 100fd
Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault selct
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ------- -----
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 31.4 4.1380 66.9 8.2450 1124.0 1.327 2.95680 5.316
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 43.1 15.6 76.2 20.7 1563.0 2.989 3.55410 7.224
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 67.6 28.5 124.1 58.7 1198.0 1.094 3.41040 10.6
*Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem
UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- -----
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 799. 1348 378. 988.8 1522.1 406.9 418.0 1520 602.8
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 754. 199. 758.3 900.5 304.3 341.9 971. 438.1
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 671. 316. 92.9 1044.1 1472.6 447.5 466.0 1472 647.7
Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better
(WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Guesses
--------- ------------- --- ---- ---- -------- -------
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20- 1595 1.2980 11.6 135.9
lucent.rd Linux 2.4.20 1592 1.3650 11.7 136.7
lucent.rd Linux 2.6.0 1572 1.3000 11.8 144.2
--
"Mom-proof" linux is my dream.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: lmbench 2.4.20-8(RH9), 2.4.20, 2.6.0
2003-12-20 3:45 lmbench 2.4.20-8(RH9), 2.4.20, 2.6.0 Huo Zhigang(霍志刚)
@ 2003-12-20 3:55 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-12-20 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Huo Zhigang; +Cc: linux-kernel
Huo Zhigang(???) wrote:
>Howdy,
>
>Is the network performance of 2.6.0 so bad or my test
>totally wrong?
>
>Could anyone tell me how to dig into performance
>optimization of linux?
>
This has come up a few times, but nobody is too worried about it.
I have profiles showing that more than double the amount of time
is spent in copying data for the same amount of work.
Its worth noting though, that it is "networking" over localhost.
I expect the numbers for remote networking are better, but don't
have a good network setup to test it.
Do you have any real applications (not benchmarks) that have
performance problems?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-20 3:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-20 3:45 lmbench 2.4.20-8(RH9), 2.4.20, 2.6.0 Huo Zhigang(霍志刚)
2003-12-20 3:55 ` Nick Piggin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox