public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gautam H Thaker <gthaker@atl.lmco.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	gautam.h.thaker@lmco.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ~5x greater CPU load for a networked application when using 2.6.15-rt15-smp vs. 2.6.12-1.1390_FC4
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:06:50 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43FF675A.6080305@atl.lmco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060224041145.5bcdbc97.akpm@osdl.org>

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
>>To figure out the true overhead of both kernels, could you try the 
>> attached loop_print_thread.c code

> http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/#zc  <- better ;)

Andrew,

I read the README for the "zc" tests. I wish Ingo can opine on which may be a
better test. Also, i assume that I can run "zcs" and "zcc" on the same
machine. I would do the tests with "send" instead of "sendfile".

I also have some other test data. The graphical summary result can be viewed
at this link:

http://www.atl.external.lmco.com/projects/QoS/LM_ATL_MW_Comparator_7920.png

In these tests I used a single Intel Xeon 3GH dual processor machine with 4
different kernels, all based on 2.6.14

2.6.14              Uniprocessor kernel
2.6.14-rt22         Uniprocessor kernel w/ RT patches
2.6.14-smp          SMP kernel
2.6.14-rt22-smp     SMP kernel w/ RT patches.


The test is similar to "zcs", "zcc" tests. In my tests a client process opens
a TCP connection to the server process (all on same machine) and sends to it
10,000,000 messages of sizes 4 bytes, 8 bytes, 16 bytes, .... , 32Kbytes,
64Kbytes. The server sends back a 1 byte reply. The client measures roundtrip
latencies. The graphic shows mean roundtrip latencies. Since measuremnts are
taken over so many samples I believe that the large differences in mean
latencies capture the relative CPU consumption of various kernel. (This being
loopback there are no NIC card issues or otherwise.) One notices a 3:1 ration
here from uniprocessor, non-RT kernel to SMP-RT kernel. The RT kernel has
nice real-time properties, and there is a lot of pressure in our systems to
use the SMP hardware of the multicore machines, and in some cases we can even
with with a 3x slowdown (since real applications do more than just I/O), but
when I started to note 5x (or more) in my newer tests I thought I would at
least post something.

I suspect that "zcs"/"zcc" tests would pretty much show the same conclusions
as this graphic.

Gautam H. Thaker
Distributed Processing Lab; Lockheed Martin Adv. Tech. Labs
3 Executive Campus; Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
856-792-9754, fax 856-792-9925  email: gthaker@atl.lmco.com

  reply	other threads:[~2006-02-24 20:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-02-23 19:55 ~5x greater CPU load for a networked application when using 2.6.15-rt15-smp vs. 2.6.12-1.1390_FC4 Gautam H Thaker
2006-02-23 20:15 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-23 20:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-02-23 21:06   ` Nish Aravamudan
2006-02-23 21:08     ` Ingo Molnar
2006-02-23 21:14       ` Nish Aravamudan
2006-02-23 22:07         ` Esben Nielsen
2006-02-24  8:03       ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-02-24 12:11   ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-24 20:06     ` Gautam H Thaker [this message]
2006-02-24 20:31       ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-24 20:44         ` Gautam H Thaker
2006-02-24 16:52 ` Theodore Ts'o
2006-02-24 19:25   ` Gautam H Thaker
2006-02-28 19:27 ` Matt Mackall
2006-02-28 22:19   ` Gautam H Thaker
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-07-11 18:08 Jonathan Walsh

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=43FF675A.6080305@atl.lmco.com \
    --to=gthaker@atl.lmco.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=gautam.h.thaker@lmco.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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