From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: AIM9 regression Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080923.221831.126801015.davem@davemloft.net> References: <48D93203.2050204@linux-foundation.org> <20080924051237.GA6173@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cl@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:47615 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514AbYIXFSn (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:18:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080924051237.GA6173@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Herbert Xu Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:12:37 +0800 > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:14:27PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > I just dont seem to be able to get 2.6.27 to behave in a speedy way network > > wise. Configured out various components (netfilter, etc etc) but I still keep > > getting these aim9 result against 2.6.22: > > Could you please compare this against something less ancient, > like 2.6.26 perhaps? Herbert, this is part of the tbench regression issues. Christoph took tbench from 2.6.22 until 2.6.27 and at basically every release tbench performance suffered noticably. Now, he's taking the AIM9 benchmark networking numbers and showing that the same exact effect is seen there too. It really behooves us to start doing something proactive about this blindingly obvious set of networking performance regressions through the past 6 or so releases instead of barking at the reporters saying things like "try this, try that, what's your config" etc. :-)