On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > > > kmalloc is really slow actually - it always shows somewhere on top
> > > > in profiles and brings noticeble overhead
> > >
> > > It shouldn't. Please describe the workload and send the profiles.
> >
> > epoll based trivial server (accept + sendfile for the same file, about
> > 4k), httperf with big amount of simulateneous connections. 3c59x NIC
> > (with e1000 there were no ioreads and netif_rx).
> > __alloc_skb calls kmem_cache_alloc() and ___kmalloc().
> >
> > 16158 1.3681 ioread16
> > 8073 0.6835 ioread32
> > 3485 0.2951 irq_entries_start
> > 3018 0.2555 _spin_lock
> > 2103 0.1781 tcp_v4_rcv
> > 1503 0.1273 sysenter_past_esp
> > 1492 0.1263 netif_rx
> > 1459 0.1235 skb_copy_bits
> > 1422 0.1204 _spin_lock_irqsave
> > 1145 0.0969 ip_route_input
> > 983 0.0832 kmem_cache_free
> > 964 0.0816 __alloc_skb
> > 926 0.0784 common_interrupt
> > 891 0.0754 __do_IRQ
> > 846 0.0716 _read_lock
> > 826 0.0699 __netif_rx_schedule
> > 806 0.0682 __kmalloc
> > 767 0.0649 do_tcp_sendpages
> > 747 0.0632 __copy_to_user_ll
> > 744 0.0630 pskb_expand_head
> >
>
> That doesn't look too bad.
>
> What's that as a percentage of total user+system time?
With e1000 allocations take more time than actual TCP processing, so it
rised some suspicious for me (especially in bulk transfer).
Total time is about 7 times more than system one, user time is much less
than system one (about 20 times less, but test duration was not too
long, so it can vary).
I do not say it is bad, but it is noticeble and should be eliminated
if there are no requirements to have it.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
