From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 11 00:52:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1B316A420 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:52:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D673643D46 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:52:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABA946C6E; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:52:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:55:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Andrew Gallatin In-Reply-To: <17388.60202.862312.337026@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Message-ID: <20060211005438.E90460@fledge.watson.org> References: <17388.44976.250463.383429@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <5383.1139586916@critter.freebsd.dk> <17388.60202.862312.337026@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] cpu time accounting patch, step 2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:52:30 -0000 On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > Unfortunately, even after your patch, we are still about 38% slower than > linux x86_64 on the same box for loopback ping-pong, and 32% slower for > ping-pong over 10GbE. (bandwidth is lower for streaming tests, and CPU > utilization is much, much much higher in FreeBSD as well). > > I think you nailed the biggest source of overhead, but there is apparently a > lot more performance that we can get out of the hardware. I'd love to see > you commit this. I can't remember if I pointed you at this before, but I remember us talking about it by e-mail. What happens to your loopback performance if you compile PREEMPTION out of the kernel? Robert N M Watson > > Drew > > x loopback_rr.after > + loopback_rr.rhel4 > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | x + | > |x x xx + ++ +| > | |_MA__| |_AM_|| > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > N Min Max Median Avg Stddev > x 5 38590.71 40167.44 39301.22 39463.23 645.1375 > + 5 53349.28 54884.98 54388.49 54274.174 566.90395 > Difference at 95.0% confidence > 14810.9 +/- 885.686 > 37.531% +/- 2.24433% > (Student's t, pooled s = 607.282) > > > x 10GbE_rr.after > + 10GbE_rr.rhel4 > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | x + | > |xxx + + + +| > | AM |___A_M_|| > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > N Min Max Median Avg Stddev > x 6 33323.05 33703.95 33614.14 33556.268 137.33838 > + 5 43448.3 44966.41 44610.41 44331.738 606.53307 > Difference at 95.0% confidence > 10775.5 +/- 571.321 > 32.1116% +/- 1.70258% > (Student's t, pooled s = 417.112) > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >