From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com>
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:21:41 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050821202141.78795.qmail@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a87484905082111205d27c1aa@mail.gmail.com>
--- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> <danial_thom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > >
> > > "Low latency comes at the cost of decreased
> > > throughput - can't have both"
> > >
> > > Seems to be a bit backwards. Threading the
> kernel
> > > adds latency, so its the additional latency
> in
> > > the kernel that causes the drop in
> throughput. Do
> > > you mean that kernel performance has been
> > > sacrificed in order to be able to service
> other
> > > threads more quickly, even when there are
> no
> > > other threads to be serviced?
> > >
> >
> > Ok, let me start with the way HZ influences
> things.
> >
> [snip]
>
> A small followup.
>
> I'm not saying that the value of HZ or your
> preempt setting (whatever
> it may be) is definately the cause of your
> problem. All I'm saying is
> that it might be a contributing factor, so it's
> probably something
> that's worth a little bit of time testing.
>
> In many cases people running a server on
> resonably new hardware with
> HZ=1000 and full preempt won't even notice, but
> that's depending on
> the load on the server and what jobs it has.
> For some tasks it
> matters, for some the differences in
> performance is negligible.
>
> You problem could very well be something else
> entirely, but try a
> kernel build with PREEMPT_NONE and HZ=100 and
> see if it makes a big
> difference (or if that's your current config,
> then try the opposite,
> HZ=1000 and PREEMPT). If it does make a
> difference, then that's a
> valuable piece of information to report on the
> list. If it turns out
> it makes next to no difference at all, then
> that as well is relevant
> information as then people will know that HZ &
> preempt is not the
> cause and can focus on finding the problem
> elsewhere.
>
Yes. Hz isn't going to make much difference on a
2.0Ghz opteron, but I can see how premption can
cause packet loss. Shouldn't packet processing be
the highest priority process? It seems pointless
to "keep the audio buffers full" if you're
dropping packets as a result.
Also some clown typing on the keyboard shouldn't
cause packet loss. Trading network integrity for
snappy responsiveness is a bad trade.
Danial
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
next parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-21 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <9a87484905082111205d27c1aa@mail.gmail.com>
2005-08-21 20:21 ` Danial Thom [this message]
2005-08-21 21:21 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-08-22 11:46 ` Denis Vlasenko
[not found] <2230.192.167.206.189.1124721719.squirrel@new.host.name>
2005-08-22 15:41 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-26 13:17 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-08-26 15:34 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-26 16:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-08-26 17:06 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-26 18:30 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-08-26 21:09 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-26 23:27 ` Ben Greear
2005-08-27 14:44 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-21 17:07 Danial Thom
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-08-21 16:57 Danial Thom
2005-08-23 7:12 ` Helge Hafting
2005-08-23 17:10 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-23 17:21 ` Patrick McHardy
2005-08-24 16:24 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-24 16:35 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-08-24 17:26 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-25 4:51 ` Ben Greear
2005-08-25 6:08 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-25 6:15 ` Ben Greear
2005-08-26 3:29 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-26 22:18 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-25 6:34 ` Ben Greear
2005-08-25 14:26 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-25 16:55 ` Ben Greear
2005-08-25 20:45 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-26 19:10 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2005-08-27 11:19 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-08-27 14:35 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-23 18:02 ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-08-23 20:10 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-23 20:22 ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-08-24 16:33 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-23 20:40 ` Patrick McHardy
2005-08-23 23:29 ` Ben Greear
2005-08-24 16:39 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-23 21:32 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-08-24 17:03 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-21 15:46 Danial Thom
2005-08-21 16:15 ` Patrick McHardy
2005-08-21 16:18 ` Danial Thom
2005-08-21 16:36 ` Patrick McHardy
2005-08-21 19:47 ` Andrew Morton
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=20050821202141.78795.qmail@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com \
--to=danial_thom@yahoo.com \
--cc=jesper.juhl@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome