James Morris a écrit :
Do you have any performance measurements?
Yes, as I said in the first mail :
>In oprofile results, ipt_do_table() was at the first position.
>It is now at 6th position, using 1/3 of the CPU it was using before.
>(Tests done on a dual Xeon i386 and a dual Opteron x86_64)
On the dual opteron machine, with 40.000 packets coming per second, and 35.000
sent per second, the numbers were : 12.8 % before the patches, 4.4 % after the
patches.
I dont have separate perf measurements for each patch.
Considering the fact that I inlined the read_lock_bh() call (not displayed in
oprofile results, probably because of the special .spinlock.text section) that
should have increased the profile of ipt_do_table(), thats a lot of CPU cycles
and mem bandwitdh that are available for other jobs.
Eric
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |