From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zhang, Yanmin" Subject: Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression in 2.6.24-rc6, comparing with 2.6.22 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:11:32 +0800 Message-ID: <1200280292.3151.24.camel@ymzhang> References: <1199871330.3298.132.camel@ymzhang> <1200043854.3265.24.camel@ymzhang> <4787ADDA.7090602@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: LKML , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:60495 "EHLO fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751360AbYANDOp (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:14:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4787ADDA.7090602@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:56 -0800, Rick Jones wrote: > >>The test command is: > >>#sudo taskset -c 7 ./netserver > >>#sudo taskset -c 0 ./netperf -t TCP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 50,3 -I 99,5 -- -r 1,1 > > A couple of comments/questions on the command lines: Thanks for your kind comments. > > *) netperf/netserver support CPU affinity within themselves with the > global -T option to netperf. Is the result with taskset much different? > The equivalent to the above would be to run netperf with: > > ./netperf -T 0,7 .. I checked the source codes and didn't find this option. I use netperf V2.3 (I found the number in the makefile). > . > > The one possibly salient difference between the two is that when done > within netperf, the initial process creation will take place wherever > the scheduler wants it. > > *) The -i option to set the confidence iteration count will silently cap > the max at 30. Indeed, you are right. -yanmin