Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Taylor Lewick <taylor.lewick@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Increased Latencies when upgrading kernel version
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:19:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1270156741.2192.14.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <o2vd585dc4f1004011212s65cc2beewed2f19321210a249@mail.gmail.com>

Le jeudi 01 avril 2010 à 14:12 -0500, Taylor Lewick a écrit :
> For some time now we've been running an older kernel, 2.6.16.60.  When
> we tried to upgrade, first going to 2.6.27.19 and then to 2.6.32.1 and
> 2.6.33.1 we noticed that latencies increased.  At first we noticed it
> by doing network tests via udpping, netperf, etc.  We made some
> tweaks, and were able to get network latency to within 1 to 2
> microseconds of where we were previously on 2.6.16.60.  Then we did
> some more testing, and noticed that system latency also seems higher.
> 
> We've done our tests on identical hardware servers, same NICs,
> connected through same network gear.  Basically, we've tried to keep
> everything identical except the kernel versions, and we are unable to
> achieve the same performance for system latency on the newer kernels,
> despite adjusting various kernel settings and recompiling.
> 
> The latency differences are about 15 microseconds per transaction.
> 
> At this point, I don't know what else to try.  I haven't played around
> with the /proc/sys/kernel/sched_* paramaters under the newer kernels
> yet.  Have tried changing pre-emption modes with little effect, in
> fact, voluntary preemption seems to be peforming the best for us.
> 
> At this time the realtime patch isn't really an option for us to
> consider, at least not yet.
> 
> Any suggestions?  Is this a known issue when upgrading to more recent
> kernel versions?
> 

Hi Taylor

Well, this is bit difficult to generically answer to your generic
question. 15 us more latency per transaction seems pretty bad.

Some inputs would be nice, describing your workload and
software/hardware architecture.

lspci
cat /proc/cpuinfo
cat /proc/interrupts
dmesg
ethtool -S eth0
ethtool -c eth0




  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-01 21:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-01 19:12 Increased Latencies when upgrading kernel version Taylor Lewick
2010-04-01 21:19 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-04-02  1:53   ` Taylor Lewick
2010-04-05 17:34     ` Taylor Lewick
2010-04-06 14:10       ` Xianghua Xiao

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=1270156741.2192.14.camel@edumazet-laptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=taylor.lewick@gmail.com \
    /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