From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
alex.shi@intel.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@intel.com,
ying.huang@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TCP_STREAM performance regression on commit b3613118
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 10:55:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120307025525.GB21919@feng-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F55CA25.2070503@redhat.com>
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:26:13PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 03/06/2012 04:11 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:07:43PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>> From: Alex Shi<alex.shi@intel.com>
> >>> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:45:17 +0800
> >>>
> >>>> > Add CC to tang feng, He is working on this issue.
> >>> > Is he? I'm pretty sure this is due to the TCP receive
> >>window growing
> >>> issue Eric Dumazet, Neal Cardwell and I are discussing in the thread
> >>> starting at:
> >>> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=132916352815286&w=2
> >Yes, probably, as we did find some clue related with the tcp_r/wmem.
> >
> >Here is the regression we found:
> >On some machines, we found there is about 10% resgression of netperf
> >TCP-64K loopback test between 3.2 and 3.3-rc1. The exact test is:
> >./netperf -t TCP_STREAM -l 60 -H 127.0.0.1 -i 50,3 -I 99,5 -- -s 32768 -S 32768 -m 4096
> >
> >
> >The test machine is a 2 socket Quad Core Core 2 Duo server(2.66GHz) with
> >8 GB RAM. Following are the debug info (ifconfig/netstat -s/tcp_rwmem)
> >before and after the test:
> >
> >The most obvious differences I can see are:
> >1) 311 GB vs 241 GB from ifconfig
> >2) the difference of the tcp_r/wmem
>
> Hi:
>
> Could you try the newest kernel? Looks like the difference has been
> already fixed by commit c43b874d5d714f271b80d4c3f49e05d0cbf51ed2.
Yeah, with the newest kernel, the regression of this simple test is gone,
the performance difference with 3.2 kernel is now only about 1-2%. Thanks
for the info.
- Feng
>
> Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-07 2:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1329466694.12669.2976.camel@debian>
[not found] ` <1329472239.2861.3.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>
2012-02-17 18:33 ` TCP_STREAM performance regression on commit b3613118 David Miller
2012-02-20 1:44 ` Alex,Shi
2012-03-02 2:45 ` Alex Shi
2012-03-02 3:07 ` David Miller
2012-03-02 6:37 ` Alex Shi
2012-03-02 12:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-03-06 8:11 ` Feng Tang
2012-03-06 8:26 ` Jason Wang
2012-03-06 12:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-03-07 2:55 ` Feng Tang [this message]
2012-03-06 18:23 ` Rick Jones
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=20120307025525.GB21919@feng-i7 \
--to=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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).