From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:38:17 +0100
Thanks very much Yanmin, I think we can apply your patch as is, if no
regression was found for 32bits.
Great. Can I get a resubmission of the patch with a cleaned up
changelog entry that describes in the regression
Comparing with kernel 2.6.24, tbench result has regression with
2.6.25-rc1.
1) On 2 quad-core processor stoakley: 4%.
2) On 4 quad-core processor tigerton: more than 30%.
bisect located below patch.
b4ce92775c2e7ff9cf79cca4e0a19c8c5fd6287b is first bad commit
commit
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:35 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:11 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800
Zhang, Yanmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:40 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 12:33 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin said:
I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2
unsigned long
pading
Zhang, Yanmin a écrit :
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:40 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 12:33 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin said:
I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:21:48 +0100
On linux-2.6.25-rc1 x86_64 :
offsetof(struct dst_entry, lastuse)=0xb0
offsetof(struct dst_entry, __refcnt)=0xb8
offsetof(struct dst_entry, __use)=0xbc
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800
Zhang, Yanmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:21:48 +0100
On linux-2.6.25-rc1 x86_64 :
offsetof(struct dst_entry, lastuse)=0xb0
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin said:
I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2 unsigned
long
pading before lastuse, so the 3 members are moved to next cache line. The
performance is
recovered.
How about below patch? Almost all performance is
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:11 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800
Zhang, Yanmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:21:48 +0100
On linux-2.6.25-rc1
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 12:33 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin said:
I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2 unsigned
long
pading before lastuse, so the 3 members are moved to next cache line. The
performance is
Zhang, Yanmin a écrit :
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 12:33 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin said:
I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2 unsigned long
pading before lastuse, so the 3 members are moved to next cache line. The
Zhang, Yanmin a écrit :
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:11 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800
Zhang, Yanmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:21:48 +0100
On
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin a écrit :
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 07:05 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
Comparing with kernel 2.6.24, tbench result has regression with
2.6.25-rc1.
1) On 2 quad-core processor stoakley:
Zhang, Yanmin a écrit :
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 07:05 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
Comparing with kernel 2.6.24, tbench result has regression with
2.6.25-rc1.
1) On 2 quad-core processor stoakley: 4%.
2) On 4 quad-core processor tigerton: more than 30%.
bisect
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:21:48 +0100
On linux-2.6.25-rc1 x86_64 :
offsetof(struct dst_entry, lastuse)=0xb0
offsetof(struct dst_entry, __refcnt)=0xb8
offsetof(struct dst_entry, __use)=0xbc
offsetof(struct dst_entry, next)=0xc0
So it should be
Comparing with kernel 2.6.24, tbench result has regression with
2.6.25-rc1.
1) On 2 quad-core processor stoakley: 4%.
2) On 4 quad-core processor tigerton: more than 30%.
bisect located below patch.
b4ce92775c2e7ff9cf79cca4e0a19c8c5fd6287b is first bad commit
commit
Zhang, Yanmin a écrit :
Comparing with kernel 2.6.24, tbench result has regression with
2.6.25-rc1.
1) On 2 quad-core processor stoakley: 4%.
2) On 4 quad-core processor tigerton: more than 30%.
bisect located below patch.
b4ce92775c2e7ff9cf79cca4e0a19c8c5fd6287b is first bad commit
commit
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 07:05 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin a �crit :
Comparing with kernel 2.6.24, tbench result has regression with
2.6.25-rc1.
1) On 2 quad-core processor stoakley: 4%.
2) On 4 quad-core processor tigerton: more than 30%.
bisect located below patch.
18 matches
Mail list logo
