From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755681AbcHSHYc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:24:32 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:13226 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753911AbcHSHY3 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:24:29 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,544,1464678000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="158259755"
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:24:20 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
        kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, lkp@01.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2%
 regression
Message-ID: <20160819072420.GA1167@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
References: <375f06dd-8439-bba3-8b45-781e1e48dc9c@intel.com>
 <CADvbK_eErG-XPsDZJxjspqfC6dnF7AGSZaWNNzkZajw9SucMAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160817084832.GA5342@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
 <CADvbK_dqSTArYJQGD9--vi4vyV-kfAg50=cK4oc7AhGzSwbLXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <80bbef60-34ed-0bf1-f1c5-8285b713c2f7@intel.com>
 <CADvbK_fGg=QUxaKAZYei+4DLYW4QDzVaGWTC5GEP2+t42AjmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160818032156.GA5250@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
 <CADvbK_cF3Mphd5CDqGVHcbbZ-L8Xz=vRPzdKTzE4A_p-ZBiDVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160819052941.GA1179@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
 <ad074d65-52bd-7b6f-f0c3-b94abf288c9a@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ad074d65-52bd-7b6f-f0c3-b94abf288c9a@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu:
> ...
> > It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have
> > something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose?
> > 
> > The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit,
> > which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf.
> 
> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the
> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m).
> 
> What's your netperf cmdline again please?

netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1

Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value
for our netperf performance test? Thanks.

Regards,
Aaron

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4524766300145191143=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:24:20 +0800
Message-ID: <20160819072420.GA1167@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ad074d65-52bd-7b6f-f0c3-b94abf288c9a@gmail.com>
List-Id: <oe-lkp.lists.linux.dev>

--===============4524766300145191143==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> Hi,
> =

> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu:
> ...
> > It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have
> > something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose?
> > =

> > The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit,
> > which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbu=
f.
> =

> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the
> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m).
> =

> What's your netperf cmdline again please?

netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1

Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value
for our netperf performance test? Thanks.

Regards,
Aaron

--===============4524766300145191143==--