Hi Hans :)
I've not read the code in order to not make assumptions about
proper parameters or how to make the tests. I've tested using an AMD
Athlon XP 1900+, using a self compiled 2.4.29 kernel. The measures
were made using zsh 'time'. Not quite exact but I think that's good
for comparisons anyway.
* Hans Henrik Happe <[email protected]> dixit:
> To test this further i wrote a program (attach: random-inet.c) that shows this
> behavior. It starts a number processes and connects them with INET sockets.
> Then n startup messages are sent. When a process receives a message it
> randomly selects a destination to forward it to. This way there will always
> be n messages in transit. The issues can be observed with just 3 processes
> and 1 message. Usage:
>
> random-init <# processes> <# messages>
With 3-1 I get an usage of 20% more or less. But with 16-1 the
CPU usage is nearly 0! and with 16-16 the usage is 5% more or less.
> I have tried more regular communication patterns but this gives full CPU
> utilization as expected. For instance sending messages in a ring (attach:
> ring-inet.c).
Not here. It uses 29% instead of 20% with 3-1, but drops to 6%
when using 16 processes. Far from full CPU usage. A test with 16-160
doesn't make the system slower or irresponsive, at least here...
> I discovered another issue when using many messages (i.e. 16 processes and 16
> messages). The responsiveness of the system degrades massively. It takes
> seconds before keyboard input are displayed. Of cause there are many very IO
> bound processes, but I'm not sure if the impact should be that high.
Not here. I haven't noticed any slow-down or latency increase
using high number of messages. Using 16-160 only uses at most 7% of
CPU per process, and I don't feel the system irresponsive.
If you want more accurate results, try to modify your test
programs: make them run for a couple of minutes (you decide how much
time, the longer, the better) and kill all children processes. After
that, use getrusage() (with RUSAGE_CHILDREN) or wait3(). That should
give more accurate results.
Hope that helps. If you want to make any other test, tell me.
I'll try to help.
Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado
--
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
http://www.pleyades.net & http://www.gotesdelluna.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
