From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression in 2.6.24-rc6, comparing with 2.6.22 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:56:42 -0800 Message-ID: <4787ADDA.7090602@hp.com> References: <1199871330.3298.132.camel@ymzhang> <1200043854.3265.24.camel@ymzhang> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: LKML , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Zhang, Yanmin" Return-path: Received: from g1t0029.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.36]:30432 "EHLO g1t0029.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759882AbYAKR4p (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:56:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1200043854.3265.24.camel@ymzhang> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>The test command is: >>#sudo taskset -c 7 ./netserver >>#sudo taskset -c 0 ./netperf -t TCP_RR -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 50,3 -I 99,5 -- -r 1,1 A couple of comments/questions on the command lines: *) netperf/netserver support CPU affinity within themselves with the global -T option to netperf. Is the result with taskset much different? The equivalent to the above would be to run netperf with: ./netperf -T 0,7 ... The one possibly salient difference between the two is that when done within netperf, the initial process creation will take place wherever the scheduler wants it. *) The -i option to set the confidence iteration count will silently cap the max at 30. happy benchmarking, rick jones