From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 28 09:20:50 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-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 76CA216A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:20:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D322743D39
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:20:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from don@sandvine.com)
Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
	id <DXVTJBZV>; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:20:47 -0500
Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337035E46FF@mail.sandvine.com>
From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
To: "'freebsd-current@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:20:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: system call performance 4.x vs 5.x [and UP vs MP]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:20:50 -0000

This is a very simplistic benchmark, so don't get too hung up on the
accuracy.

If you run this on a given machine on 4.x vs 5.x, you will notice
a dramatic difference [yes, invariants, et al are disabled].

For example, on a 2.0GHz P4-Xeon, HTT enabled, MP kernel, i can
do ~1M socket/s calls on 4.7, but only ~250K/s on 5.2.

     syscall      4.7        5.2
       write  1015036     169800 
      socket  1078994     223253
      select   430564     155077
gettimeofday   252762     183620

As a side note, any idea why gettimeofday is so much more
expensive than socket?

Any suggestion on why such a difference between 4.x and 5.x?
code is compiled the same on each, 'gcc -O2', no threading
options chosen.

For interest, you can try the same program on 4.x in UP vs MP,
and the difference is very dramatic too.

#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/uio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <stdio.h>

#define M(n) measure(#n, n);

static void
measure(char *name, void (*fp)(int,...))
{
    double speed;
    int j;
    unsigned long long i = 0;
    unsigned long long us;
    struct timeval tp,tp1;
    gettimeofday(&tp, 0);
    tp1 = tp;

    while (tp1.tv_sec - tp.tv_sec < 10)
    {
        for (j = 0; j < 1000000; j++)
        {
            fp(0,0,0,0);
            i++;
        }
        gettimeofday(&tp1, 0);
    }
    us = ((tp1.tv_sec - tp.tv_sec) * 1000000) + (tp1.tv_usec - tp.tv_usec);
    speed = (1000000.0 * i) / us;
    printf("{%s: %llu %llu %6.2f}\n", name, i,us, speed);
}

static void
doGettimeofday()
{
    double speed;
    unsigned long long i = 0;
    unsigned long long us;
    struct timeval tp,tp1;
    gettimeofday(&tp, 0);
    tp1 = tp;

    while (tp1.tv_sec - tp.tv_sec < 10)
    {
        gettimeofday(&tp1, 0);
        i++;
    }
    us = ((tp1.tv_sec - tp.tv_sec) * 1000000) + (tp1.tv_usec - tp.tv_usec);
    speed = (1000000.0 * i) / us;
    printf("{gettimeofday: %llu %llu %6.2f}\n", i,us, speed);
}

int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    M(write);
    M(socket);
    M(select);
    doGettimeofday();
    return 0;
}