Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id fBILqf917480 for netdev-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:52:41 -0800 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br (perninha.conectiva.com.br [200.250.58.156]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id fBILqVo17468 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:52:32 -0800 Received: from brinquedo.distro.conectiva (dhcp047.distro.conectiva [10.0.20.47]) by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDD538C15; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:52:11 -0300 (EST) Received: by brinquedo.distro.conectiva (Postfix, from userid 501) id DE587C44B; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:52:00 -0200 (BRST) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:52:00 -0200 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: "David S. Miller" Cc: SteveW@ACM.org, jschlst@samba.org, ncorbic@sangoma.com, eis@baty.hanse.de, dag@brattli.net, torvalds@transmeta.com, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC 2] cleaning up struct sock Message-ID: <20011218185200.A1211@conectiva.com.br> Mail-Followup-To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , "David S. Miller" , SteveW@ACM.org, jschlst@samba.org, ncorbic@sangoma.com, eis@baty.hanse.de, dag@brattli.net, torvalds@transmeta.com, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20011210230810.C896@conectiva.com.br> <20011210.231826.55509210.davem@redhat.com> <20011218033552.B910@conectiva.com.br> <20011217.225134.91313099.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011217.225134.91313099.davem@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Url: http://advogato.org/person/acme Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1508 Lines: 39 Em Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 10:51:34PM -0800, David S. Miller escreveu: > Which brings me to... > > Please let me know if this is something acceptable for 2.5. > > What kind of before/after effect do you see in lat_tcp/lat_connect > (from lmbench) runs? Improvements on the lat_connect case? :) 2.4.16 TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 119.3369 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 118.9847 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 118.5139 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 119.1301 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 118.6322 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 429.6667 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 430.7692 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 431.4615 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 430.3846 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 435.4615 microseconds 2.4.16-acme5 TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 119.2639 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 118.6068 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 119.0443 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 119.5683 microseconds TCP latency using 127.0.0.1: 118.9556 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 408.3571 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 409.6429 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 410.6429 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 409.2143 microseconds TCP/IP connection cost to 127.0.0.1: 414.8333 microseconds More results are coming, this time for local connections on a 8-way box - Arnaldo