From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression
	in	2.6.24-rc6,	comparing with 2.6.22
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:24:42 +0800
Message-ID: <1200979482.3151.103.camel@ymzhang>
References: <1199871330.3298.132.camel@ymzhang>
	 <1200043854.3265.24.camel@ymzhang>  <4787ADDA.7090602@hp.com>
	 <1200280292.3151.24.camel@ymzhang>  <478B9FE0.3040801@hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:58777 "EHLO
	fmsmga101.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751013AbYAVF0F (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:26:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <478B9FE0.3040801@hp.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 09:46 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> >>*) 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).
> 
> Indeed, that version pre-dates the -T option.  If you weren't already 
> chasing a regression I'd suggest an upgrade to 2.4.mumble.  Once you are 
> at a point where changing another variable won't muddle things you may 
> want to consider upgrading.
> 
> happy benchmarking,
Rick,

I found my UDP_RR testing is just loop in netperf instead of ping-pang between
netserver and netperf. Is it correct? TCP_RR is ok.

#./netserver
#./netperf -t UDP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 30,3 -I 99,5 -- -P 12384 -r 1,1

Thanks,
-yanmin