On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 06:24:32PM -0700, Matt Leininger wrote:
>
> Is it still worth testing the TSO patches that Herbert suggested for
> some of the 2.6.13-rc kernels?
If you're still seeing a performance regression compared to
2.6.12-rc4, then yes (According to the figures in your message
t
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 11:28 -0700, Matt Leininger wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 09:53 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Herbert> Try reverting the changeset
> >
> > Herbert> 314324121f9b94b2ca657a494cf2b9cb0e4a28cc
> >
> > Herbert> which lies between these two points and may be relevan
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 09:53 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Herbert> Try reverting the changeset
>
> Herbert> 314324121f9b94b2ca657a494cf2b9cb0e4a28cc
>
> Herbert> which lies between these two points and may be relevant.
>
> Matt, I pulled this out of git for you. I guess Herbert is s
Herbert> Try reverting the changeset
Herbert> 314324121f9b94b2ca657a494cf2b9cb0e4a28cc
Herbert> which lies between these two points and may be relevant.
Matt, I pulled this out of git for you. I guess Herbert is suggesting
to patch -R the below against 2.6.12-rc5:
diff --git a/net/
Roland> I might get a chance to do it tonight... I'll post if I do.
I'm giving it a shot but I just can't reproduce this well on my
systems. I do see a pretty big regression between 2.6.12-rc4 and
2.6.14-rc2, but 2.6.12-rc5 looks OK on my systems.
I reflashed to FW 4.7.0 (mem-ful) and built
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 01:30, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:26:52PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> ...
>
> > If it's interleaving, every other cacheline will be "local".
>
> ISTR AMD64 was page-interleaved but then got confused by documents
> describing "128-bit" 2-way inte
Matt> Yes, I'm using mem-full HCAs. I could try reflashing the
Matt> firmware for memfree if that's of interest.
No, probably not. If I get a chance I'll do the opposite (flash
mem-free -> mem-full, since my HCAs do have memory) and see if it
makes my results stable.
Matt> I wa
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 16:38 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Matt> Pretty consistent. Here are a few runs with 2.6.12-rc5
> Matt> with reboots in between each run. I'm using netperf-2.3pl1.
>
> That's interesting. I'm guessing you're using mem-ful HCAs?
Yes, I'm using mem-full HCAs.
Matt> Pretty consistent. Here are a few runs with 2.6.12-rc5
Matt> with reboots in between each run. I'm using netperf-2.3pl1.
That's interesting. I'm guessing you're using mem-ful HCAs?
Given that your results are more stable than mine, if you're up for
it, you could install git, cl
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:26:52PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
...
> If it's interleaving, every other cacheline will be "local".
ISTR AMD64 was page-interleaved but then got confused by documents
describing "128-bit" 2-way interleave. I now realize the 128bit
is refering to interleave between tw
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 11:23 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > 2.6.12-rc5 in-kernel1 405 <
> > 2.6.12-rc4 in-kernel1 470 <
>
> I was optimistic when I saw this, because the changeover to git
> occurred with 2.6.12-rc2, so I thought I could use git bisec
Roland Dreier wrote:
Rick> Which rev of netperf are you using, and areyou using the
Rick> "confidence intervals" options (-i, -I)? for a long time,
Rick> the linux-unique behaviour of returning the overhead bytes
Rick> for SO_[SND|RCV]BUF and them being 2X what one gives in
R
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:23:45AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > 2.6.12-rc5 in-kernel1 405 <
> > 2.6.12-rc4 in-kernel1 470 <
>
> I was optimistic when I saw this, because the changeover to git
> occurred with 2.6.12-rc2, so I thought I could use gi
Rick> Which rev of netperf are you using, and areyou using the
Rick> "confidence intervals" options (-i, -I)? for a long time,
Rick> the linux-unique behaviour of returning the overhead bytes
Rick> for SO_[SND|RCV]BUF and them being 2X what one gives in
Rick> setsockopt() gave
Roland Dreier wrote:
> 2.6.12-rc5 in-kernel1 405 <
> 2.6.12-rc4 in-kernel1 470 <
I was optimistic when I saw this, because the changeover to git
occurred with 2.6.12-rc2, so I thought I could use git bisect to track
down exactly when the performanc
> 2.6.12-rc5 in-kernel1 405 <
> 2.6.12-rc4 in-kernel1 470 <
I was optimistic when I saw this, because the changeover to git
occurred with 2.6.12-rc2, so I thought I could use git bisect to track
down exactly when the performance regression happened.
I'm adding netdev to this thread to see if they can help.
I'm seeing an IPoIB (IP over InfiniBand) netperf performance drop off,
of up to 90 MB/s, when using kernels newer than 2.6.11. This doesn't
appear to be an OpenIB IPoIB issue since the older in-kernel IB for
2.6.11 and a recent svn3687 sna
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 18:16 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> I wonder if this BIC bug has anything to do with it:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/10/7/230
>
I'm not sure this helps. I'm seeing the performance drop of happen
between 2.6.12-rc4 (470 MB/s) and 2.6.12-rc5 (405 MB/s).
I'll send out my
I wonder if this BIC bug has anything to do with it:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/10/7/230
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/li
Hmm, looks like something in the network stack must have changed.
> 2.6.12 in-kernel1 406
> 2.6.11 in-kernel1 464
This looks like the biggest dropoff. I can think of two things that
would be interesting to do if you or anyone else has time. First,
tak
Matt,
I have seen the same thing. I just didn't relate it to the Kernel. My
IPoIB performance is down to ~340MB/sec
with 2.6.12.1 and svn 3040.
With 2.6.13 and svn 3490 the peak is 402MB/sec.
At 02:06 AM 10/7/2005, Matt Leininger wrote:
I'm seeing an IPoIB netperf performance drop off
Hi Matt,
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 04:06, Matt Leininger wrote:
> I'm seeing an IPoIB netperf performance drop off, up to 90 MB/s, when
> using kernels newer than 2.6.11. This doesn't appear to be an OpenIB
> IPoIB issue since the in-kernel and a recent svn3687 snapshot both have
> the same performan
I'm seeing an IPoIB netperf performance drop off, up to 90 MB/s, when
using kernels newer than 2.6.11. This doesn't appear to be an OpenIB
IPoIB issue since the in-kernel and a recent svn3687 snapshot both have
the same performance (464 MB/s) with 2.6.11. I used the same kernel
config file as a s
23 matches
Mail list logo
