From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1945971AbXDCV0S (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:26:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1945968AbXDCV0S (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:26:18 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:46288 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945964AbXDCV0Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:26:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:26:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "dave_sperry@ieee.org" Cc: David Sperry , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Improved UDP performance using 2.6.21-rc5-rt10 Message-ID: <20070403212611.GC28093@elte.hu> References: <040320071326.11440.461256000007192600002CB02207300793979D9D0A9F9C0E0B@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <040320071326.11440.461256000007192600002CB02207300793979D9D0A9F9C0E0B@comcast.net> 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 * dave_sperry@ieee.org wrote: > rt10 shows a big improvement over rt8 > > ################################################## > etup Thruput CPU% > Nvidia > 2.6.21-rc5-rt8 938 65% > netperf @51 > hardirq @50 > softirq @50 > > Nvidia > 2.6.21-rc5-rt10 938 32% > netperf @51 > hardirq @50 > softirq @50 cool! Btw., could you run the same but without running cyclesoak, and only watching the 'idle' metric in 'top' or vmstat? I found in my experiments that cyclesoak sometimes interfers with the workload - and the idle stats are precise and accurate on -rt. (they are not on vanilla) Ingo