From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933330AbXDBFzd (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 01:55:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932659AbXDBFzd (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 01:55:33 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:49217 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932339AbXDBFzb (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 01:55:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 07:55:09 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nivedita Singhvi Cc: Dave Sperry , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev Subject: Re: Poor UDP performance using 2.6.21-rc5-rt5 Message-ID: <20070402055509.GC3284@elte.hu> References: <461004CE.1030009@ieee.org> <461010F9.7040706@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <461010F9.7040706@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nivedita Singhvi wrote: > Dave Sperry wrote: > >Hi > > (adding netdev to cc list) in general (except of course those netdev folks that are interested in -rt+networking performance matters) i'd suggest we analyze this in an -rt specific way - netdev shouldnt have to bother about this. > And I'm assuming nothing very different in the stats or errors through > both runs? one thing to check would be whether both kernels use the same clocksource, via: cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource but at first sight there's no clocksource related overhead in the oprofile. Ingo