From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756933AbYKUSRj (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:17:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753039AbYKUSR3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:17:29 -0500 Received: from gw1.cosmosbay.com ([86.65.150.130]:40361 "EHLO gw1.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752705AbYKUSR2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:17:28 -0500 Message-ID: <4926FB13.3080808@cosmosbay.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:16:51 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Lameter CC: Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 References: <1ScKicKnTUE.A.VxH.DIHIJB@chimera> <20081117090648.GG28786@elte.hu> <20081121083044.GL16242@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (gw1.cosmosbay.com [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:16:52 +0100 (CET) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Lameter a écrit : > AIM9 results: > TCP UDP > 2.6.22 104868.00 489970.03 > 2.6.28-rc5 110007.00 518640.00 > net-next 108207.00 514790.00 > > net-next looses here for some reason against 2.6.28-rc5. But the numbers > are better than 2.6.22 in any case. > I found that on current net-next, running oprofile in background can give better bench results. Thats really curious... no ? So the single loop on close(socket()), on all my 8 cpus is almost 10% faster if oprofile is running... (20 secs instead of 23 secs) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:16:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4926FB13.3080808@cosmosbay.com> References: <1ScKicKnTUE.A.VxH.DIHIJB@chimera> <20081117090648.GG28786@elte.hu> <20081121083044.GL16242@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , "David S. Miller" Christoph Lameter a =E9crit : > AIM9 results: > TCP UDP > 2.6.22 104868.00 489970.03 > 2.6.28-rc5 110007.00 518640.00 > net-next 108207.00 514790.00 >=20 > net-next looses here for some reason against 2.6.28-rc5. But the numb= ers > are better than 2.6.22 in any case. >=20 I found that on current net-next, running oprofile in background can gi= ve better bench results. Thats really curious... no ? So the single loop on close(socket()), on all my 8 cpus is almost 10% f= aster if oprofile is running... (20 secs instead of 23 secs)