From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:49:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49F9821C.5010802@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090429091130.GA27857@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * 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)
I tried this perf stuff and got strange results on a cpu burning bench,
saturating my 8 cpus with a "while (1) ;" loop
# perf stat -a sleep 10
Performance counter stats for 'sleep':
80334.709038 task clock ticks (msecs)
80638 context switches (events)
4 CPU migrations (events)
468 pagefaults (events)
160694681969 CPU cycles (events)
160127154810 instructions (events)
686393 cache references (events)
230117 cache misses (events)
Wall-clock time elapsed: 10041.531644 msecs
So its about 16069468196 cycles per second for 8 cpus
Divide by 8 to get 2008683524 cycles per second per cpu,
which is not 3000000000 (E5450 @ 3.00GHz)
It seems strange a "jmp myself" uses one unhalted cycle per instruction
and 0.5 halted cycle ...
Also, after using "perf stat", tbench results are 1778 MB/S
instead of 2610 MB/s. Even if no perf stat running.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-30 10:49 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
2009-04-30 10:49 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
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=49F9821C.5010802@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=cl@linux.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=mingo@elte.hu \
--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).