From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757893Ab1JEHEJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:04:09 -0400 Received: from mx.binnacle.cx ([74.95.187.105]:45682 "EHLO mx.binnacle.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757242Ab1JEHEH (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:04:07 -0400 Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005025227.03a9d9f0@binnacle.cx> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:58:17 -0400 To: Joe Perches , Christoph Lameter , Serge Belyshev , Con Kolivas From: starlight@binnacle.cx Subject: Re: big picture UDP/IP performance question re 2.6.18 -> 2.6.32 Cc: Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev , Willy Tarreau , Peter Zijlstra , Stephen Hemminger Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Final note: I had captured latency measurements for two of the three kernels. Just ran 2.6.18(rhel5) and the results are stunning. The older kernel is much, much better then the newer kernel. Average latency is three times better and the standard deviation is six time better. As in 300% and 600%. Latency here is the time it takes a packet to travel from the kernel (where it is timestamped) till it reaches the final consumption point in the application. Makes me think that the old kernel is better at keeping caches hot and scheduling woken threads on the same cores as the threads that triggered them.