netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	haoki@redhat.com, mchan@broadcom.com, davidel@xmailserver.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:11:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090429091130.GA27857@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49F77108.7060509@cosmosbay.com>


* Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

> On uddpping, I had prior to the patch about 49000 wakeups per 
> second, and after patch about 26000 wakeups per second (matches 
> number of incoming udp messages per second)

very nice. It might not show up as a real performance difference if 
the CPUs are not fully saturated during the test - but it could show 
up as a decrease in CPU utilization.

Also, if you run the test via 'perf stat -a ./test.sh' you should 
see a reduction in instructions executed:

aldebaran:~/linux/linux> perf stat -a sleep 1

 Performance counter stats for 'sleep':

   16128.045994  task clock ticks     (msecs)
          12876  context switches     (events)
            219  CPU migrations       (events)
         186144  pagefaults           (events)
    20911802763  CPU cycles           (events)
    19309416815  instructions         (events)
      199608554  cache references     (events)
       19990754  cache misses         (events)

 Wall-clock time elapsed:  1008.882282 msecs

With -a it's measured system-wide, from start of test to end of test 
- the results will be a lot more stable (and relevant) statistically 
than wall-clock time or CPU usage measurements. (both of which are 
rather imprecise in general)

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-29  9:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-24 20:10 udp ping pong with various process bindings (and correct cpu mappings) Christoph Lameter
2009-04-24 21:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-25 15:47 ` [PATCH] net: Avoid extra wakeups of threads blocked in wait_for_packet() Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26  9:04   ` David Miller
2009-04-26 10:46     ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 13:33       ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-26 14:27         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28  9:15       ` David Miller
2009-04-28  9:24         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 14:21       ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-28 14:58         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 15:06         ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 19:05           ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 20:05             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 20:14               ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 20:33                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 20:49                   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:04                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 21:00                       ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:05                       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 21:04                         ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:11                       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29  9:11                         ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-04-30 10:49                           ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 11:57                             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-30 14:08                               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 16:07                                 ` [BUG] perf_counter: change cpu frequencies Eric Dumazet
2009-05-03  6:06                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-05-03  7:25                                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-04 10:39                                       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 21:24                                 ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-29  7:20           ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-29  7:35             ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-29  7:37               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29  9:22               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29  7:39             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29  8:26               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29  9:16           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29  9:36             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 10:27               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 12:29                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 13:07                   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 15:53                   ` Davide Libenzi
2009-04-28  9:26   ` [PATCH] net: Avoid extra wakeups of threads blocked in wait_for_packet() 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=20090429091130.GA27857@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
    --cc=haoki@redhat.com \
    --cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchan@broadcom.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).