From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
To: vatsa@in.ibm.com
Cc: ak@suse.de, davem@redhat.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
paulmck@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Use RCU for tcp_ehash lookup
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:45:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040901224546.03765c8d.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040901113641.GA3918@in.ibm.com>
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:06:41 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:54:20PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I bet also when you just do rdtsc timing for the TCP receive
> > path the cycle numbers will be way down (excluding the copy).
>
> I got cycle numbers for the lookup routine (with CONFIG_PREEMPT turned off).
> They were taken on a 900MHz 8way Intel P3 SMP box. The results are as below:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 2.6.8.1 | 2.6.8.1 + my patch
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Average cycles | |
> spent in | |
> __tcp_v4_lookup_established | 2970.65 | 668.227
> | (~3.3 micro-seconds) | (~0.74 microseconds)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This repesents improvement by a factor of 77.5%!
And yet none of your benchmarks show noticable
improvements, which means that this micro-measurement
is totally unimportant in the grand scheme of things
as far as we know.
I'm not adding in a patch that merely provides some
micro-measurement improvement that someone can do a
shamans dance over. :) If we're going to add this
new level of complexity to the TCP code we need to
see some real usage performance improvement, not just
something that shows up when we put a microscope on
a single function.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-02 5:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-31 12:59 [RFC] Use RCU for tcp_ehash lookup Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2004-08-31 13:04 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2004-08-31 13:12 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2004-08-31 13:54 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-01 11:36 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2004-09-02 5:45 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2004-09-02 21:19 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-02 5:43 ` David S. Miller
2004-09-02 5:41 ` David S. Miller
2004-09-02 14:04 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2004-09-02 16:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20040901224546.03765c8d.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).