netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: wenji@fnal.gov, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug 7596 - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:32:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061130063252.GC2003@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061129154200.c4db558c.akpm@osdl.org>


* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> > Attached is the detailed description of the problem and one possible 
> > solution.
> 
> Thanks.  The attachment will be too large for the mailing-list servers 
> so I uploaded a copy to 
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/Linux-TCP-Bottleneck-Analysis-Report.pdf
> 
> From a quick peek it appears that you're getting around 10% 
> improvement in TCP throughput, best case.

Wenji, have you tried to renice the receiving task (to say nice -20) and 
see how much TCP throughput you get in "background load of 10.0". 
(similarly, you could also renice the background load tasks to nice +19 
and/or set their scheduling policy to SCHED_BATCH)

as far as i can see, the numbers in the paper and the patch prove the 
following two points:

 - a task doing TCP receive with 10 other tasks running on the CPU will
   see lower TCP throughput than if it had the CPU for itself alone.

 - a patch that tweaks the scheduler to give the receiving task more
   timeslices (i.e. raises its nice level in essence) results in ...
   more timeslices, which results in higher receive numbers ...

so the most important thing to check would be, before any scheduler and 
TCP code change is considered: if you give the task higher priority 
/explicitly/, via nice -20, do the numbers improve? Similarly, if all 
the other "background load" tasks are reniced to nice +19 (or their 
policy is set to SCHED_BATCH), do you get a similar improvement?

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2006-11-30  6:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <HNEBLGGMEGLPMPPDOPMGKEAJCGAA.wenji@fnal.gov>
2006-11-29 23:27 ` [Changelog] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP Wenji Wu
2006-11-29 23:28   ` [patch 1/4] " Wenji Wu
2006-11-29 23:29     ` [patch 2/4] " Wenji Wu
2006-11-29 23:30       ` [patch 3/4] " Wenji Wu
2006-11-29 23:31         ` [patch 4/4] " Wenji Wu
2006-11-30  0:53     ` [patch 1/4] " David Miller
2006-11-30  1:08       ` Andrew Morton
2006-11-30  1:13         ` David Miller
2006-11-30  6:04         ` Mike Galbraith
2006-11-29 23:36   ` [Changelog] " Martin Bligh
2006-11-29 23:42 ` Bug 7596 " Andrew Morton
2006-11-30  6:32   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-12-19 18:37     ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-12-19 23:52       ` Herbert Xu
2006-12-20  2:55         ` David Miller
2006-12-20  5:11           ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-12-20  5:15             ` David Miller
2006-11-30  1:01 ` David Miller

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=20061130063252.GC2003@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wenji@fnal.gov \
    /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).