From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754061Ab2HEI3C (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2012 04:29:02 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:43103 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752893Ab2HEI25 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2012 04:28:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Huge performance degradation for UDP between 2.4.17 and 2.6 From: Eric Dumazet To: LEROY christophe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev In-Reply-To: <501E2BC5.5020709@c-s.fr> References: <501A722D.1070900@c-s.fr> <1343916836.9299.189.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <501E2BC5.5020709@c-s.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:28:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1344155331.9299.1573.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 10:16 +0200, LEROY christophe wrote: > Le 02/08/2012 16:13, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > > On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 14:27 +0200, leroy christophe wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I'm having a big issue with UDP. Using a powerpc board (MPC860). > >> > >> With our board running kernel 2.4.17, I'm able to send 160000 voice > >> packets (UDP, 96 bytes per packet) in 11 seconds. > >> With the same board running either Kernel 2.6.35.14 or Kernel 3.4.7, I > >> need 55 seconds to send the same amount of packets. > >> > >> > >> Is there anything to tune in order to get same output rate as with > >> Kernel 2.4 ? > > kernel size is probably too big for your old / slow cpu. > > > > Maybe you added too many features on your 3.4.7 kernel. (netfilter ? > > SLUB debugging ...) > > > > Its hard to say, 2.4.17 had less features and was faster. > > > > Thanks for your answer. > Yes I have netfilter as I need it. However, I tried without it and still > need about 37 seconds to send the 160000 packets I was sending in 11 > seconds with 2.4.17 > > I don't think there is any problem with size of the kernel. I still have > plenty of memory available. > I believe you misunderstood me. I was referring to cpu caches ( dcache & icache ) > All debugging is turned off, and I'm not using SLUB but SLOB. > I have 32Mbytes of RAM. Would SLUB be more performant than SLOB ? I never used SLOB I cannot comment Please provide (on 3.4.7) cat /proc/cpuinfo lsmod dmesg