From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 10 19:36:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B0A16A420 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:36:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5853143D81 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:36:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1AJaGiA011341 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:36:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id k1AJaArj034650; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:36:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17388.60202.862312.337026@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:36:10 -0500 (EST) To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: <5383.1139586916@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <17388.44976.250463.383429@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <5383.1139586916@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] cpu time accounting patch, step 2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:36:32 -0000 Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > In message <17388.44976.250463.383429@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>, Andrew Gallatin > writes: > > >Here are some benchmark results from my "AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual > >Core Processor 3800+" running an SMP kernel for both loopback and > >10GbE TCP networks. The executive summary is that there's a 41% > >improvement in loopback pingpong, and a 12.5% improvement in a > >pingpong test with a remote linux machine over 10GbE. Since the linux > >machine isn't infinately fast, the improvement is probably a bit more > >than 12.5% ;) > > That's a LOT more than I had hoped for... Unfortunately, even after your patch, we are still about 38% slower than linux x86_64 on the same box for loopback ping-pong, and 32% slower for ping-pong over 10GbE. (bandwidth is lower for streaming tests, and CPU utilization is much, much much higher in FreeBSD as well). I think you nailed the biggest source of overhead, but there is apparently a lot more performance that we can get out of the hardware. I'd love to see you commit this. Drew x loopback_rr.after + loopback_rr.rhel4 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | x + | |x x xx + ++ +| | |_MA__| |_AM_|| +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ N Min Max Median Avg Stddev x 5 38590.71 40167.44 39301.22 39463.23 645.1375 + 5 53349.28 54884.98 54388.49 54274.174 566.90395 Difference at 95.0% confidence 14810.9 +/- 885.686 37.531% +/- 2.24433% (Student's t, pooled s = 607.282) x 10GbE_rr.after + 10GbE_rr.rhel4 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | x + | |xxx + + + +| | AM |___A_M_|| +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ N Min Max Median Avg Stddev x 6 33323.05 33703.95 33614.14 33556.268 137.33838 + 5 43448.3 44966.41 44610.41 44331.738 606.53307 Difference at 95.0% confidence 10775.5 +/- 571.321 32.1116% +/- 1.70258% (Student's t, pooled s = 417.112)