netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
To: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Understanding lock contention in __udp4_lib_mcast_deliver
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:46:58 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51CCA4C2.7050301@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130627202008.GB5936@sbohrermbp13-local.rgmadvisors.com>

On 06/27/2013 01:20 PM, Shawn Bohrer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:58:39PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>> Are there other processes showing _raw_spin_lock time?  It may be
>> more clear to add a --sort symbol,dso or some such to your perf
>> report command.  Because what you show there suggests less than 1%
>> of the active cycles are in _raw_spin_lock.
>
> You think I'm wasting time going after small potatoes huh?

Perhaps.  I also find it difficult to see the potatoes' (symbols') big 
picture in perf's default sorting :)

> On a normal system it looks like it is about .12% total which is
> indeed small but my thinking was that I should be able to make that
> go to 0 easily by ensuring we use unique ports and only have one
> socket per multicast addr:port.  Now that I've failed at making it go
> to 0 I would mostly like to understand what part of my thinking was
> flawed. Or perhaps I can make it go to zero if I do ...

How do you know that time is actually contention and not simply acquire 
and release overhead?

rick jones

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-27 20:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-27 19:22 Understanding lock contention in __udp4_lib_mcast_deliver Shawn Bohrer
2013-06-27 19:58 ` Rick Jones
2013-06-27 20:20   ` Shawn Bohrer
2013-06-27 20:46     ` Rick Jones [this message]
2013-06-27 21:54       ` Shawn Bohrer
2013-06-27 22:03         ` Rick Jones
2013-06-27 22:44           ` Shawn Bohrer
2013-07-02 20:16             ` Eric Dumazet
2013-06-27 21:39 ` Or Gerlitz
2013-06-27 21:58   ` Shawn Bohrer

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=51CCA4C2.7050301@hp.com \
    --to=rick.jones2@hp.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com \
    /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).