You are using devirtualized elements. It looks like you need to do some profiling to figure out where the problem is. There are a lot of your own elements in there. In the user-level config, perhaps the CPU usage problem is due to the device elements not being smart or something -- you could see, for example, how often they are scheduled.
Good luck! Eddie Giovanni Di Stasi wrote: > --- Eddie Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > >> Hi Giovanni, >> >> First off, I've changed Click to not check for >> click-buildtool unless >> something really needs to be compiled. The previous >> code required buildtool >> even if nothing needed to be compiled. >> > ok! > >> To see if your configuration was really using the >> devirtualized elements, try >> something like >> >> click CLICKFILE -h flatconfig -q >> > This is the output of the output ot that command: > > forwarder :: FCCAForwarder@@forwarder(IP > 192.168.3.100,TIMER 60, FLOODER flooder, DEBUG no, > GESLINKS geslinks, NUM_PACKETS 5); > flooder :: FCCAFlooder(DEBUG no, GESLINKS geslinks); > fccaCheckHeader :: > FCCACheckHeader@@fccaCheckHeader(CHECKSUM false, DEBUG > no); > fccaencap :: FCCAEncap2@@fccaencap(MHC_COEFF 230, > FLOODER flooder); > stripHeader :: FCCAStripHeaderKer@@stripHeader; > geslinks :: FCCAGesLinks(ath0 00:80:48:41:4F:4C, ath1 > 00:80:48:41:4F:74); > host/toHost :: ToHost(fcca); > host/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: FromHost@@host/[EMAIL PROTECTED](fcca, > 192.168.3.100/255.255.255.0, ETHER 22:22:22:22:22:22); > host/fromhost_cl :: > Classifier@@host/fromhost_cl(12/0806, 12/0800); > host/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: > FCCAArpResponder@@host/[EMAIL PROTECTED](0.0.0.0/0 > 1:1:1:1:1:1); > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: WifiEncap@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](0, > 11:11:11:11:11:11 ); > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: Queue(10); > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: ToDevice@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](ath0); > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: > FromDevice@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](ath0); > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: Paint@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](0); > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: FilterTX@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]; > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: WifiDecap@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]; > ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: > HostEtherFilter@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](00:80:48:41:4F:4C, > DROP_OTHER true, DROP_OWN false); > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: WifiEncap@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](0, > 11:11:11:11:11:11 ); > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: Queue(10); > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: ToDevice@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](ath1); > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: > FromDevice@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](ath1); > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: Paint@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](1); > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: FilterTX@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]; > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: WifiDecap@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]; > ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: > HostEtherFilter@@ath0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](00:80:48:41:4F:74, > DROP_OTHER true, DROP_OWN false); > > forwarder [2] -> ath1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > It seems that I'm using devirtualized elements, am I > correct? > >> It's been a long time since anyone has TESTED the >> performance of devirtualized >> code. I wouldn't be surprised if the >> devirtualization transformation wasn't >> very important on embedded systems. >> > In fact the first tests I've done show the same > performace in both cases (and the proc usage is near > 100%). Any hints? > > Click kernel module, without devirtualization, has a > little better performaces, and the cpu is idle most of > the time (in this case I don't understand why the > processor is idle and throughput is low). > > > > > Inviato da Yahoo! Mail. > La web mail più usata al mondo. > http://it.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > click mailing list > [email protected] > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click _______________________________________________ click mailing list [email protected] https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
