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: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:46:08 -0800 Message-ID: <478B9FE0.3040801@hp.com> References: <1199871330.3298.132.camel@ymzhang> <1200043854.3265.24.camel@ymzhang> <4787ADDA.7090602@hp.com> <1200280292.3151.24.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 g4t0015.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.18]:9973 "EHLO g4t0015.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750720AbYANRqK (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:46:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1200280292.3151.24.camel@ymzhang> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>*) 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 .. > > I checked the source codes and didn't find this option. > I use netperf V2.3 (I found the number in the makefile). Indeed, that version pre-dates the -T option. If you weren't already chasing a regression I'd suggest an upgrade to 2.4.mumble. Once you are at a point where changing another variable won't muddle things you may want to consider upgrading. happy benchmarking, rick jones