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 17:38:36 +0800 Message-ID: <1200303516.3151.30.camel@ymzhang> References: <1199871330.3298.132.camel@ymzhang> <1200043854.3265.24.camel@ymzhang> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: LKML , Netdev To: Ilpo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E4rvinen?= Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:19409 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753999AbYANJlD (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:41:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 11:21 +0200, Ilpo J=E4rvinen wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ilpo J=E4rvinen wrote: >=20 > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > >=20 > > > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:=20 > > > >=20 > > > > As a matter of fact, 2.6.23 has about 6% regression and 2.6.24-= rc's > > > > regression is between 16%~11%. > > > >=20 > > > > I tried to use bisect to locate the bad patch between 2.6.22 an= d 2.6.23-rc1, > > > > but the bisected kernel wasn't stable and went crazy. > >=20 > > TCP work between that is very much non-existing. >=20 > I _really_ meant 2.6.22 - 2.6.23-rc1, not 2.6.24-rc1 in case you had = a=20 > typo I did bisect 2.6.22 - 2.6.23-rc1. I also tested it on the latest 2.6.24= -rc. > there which is not that uncommon while typing kernel versions... :-) Thanks. I will retry bisect and bind the server/client to the same logi= cal processor, where I hope the result is stable this time when bisecting. Manual testing showed there is still same or more regression if I bind = the processes on the same cpu. Thanks a lot! -yanmin