Quoting r. Grant Grundler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] (fixed) reduce qp locking on cq poll > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:37:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Quoting r. Grant Grundler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] (fixed) reduce qp locking on cq poll > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:19:02PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > I'm a little worried that you see no improvement from this patch -- it > > > > > doesn't seem like fast hardware should be required. > > > > > > I was wondering the same thing. Why is fast HW required? > > > > See below. > > Sorry - I didn't see the answer "below". > Can you be more specific?
Its not the speed of hardware, my problem is the variations. > > > Can you quantify what you mean by "wild variations" and "big wins"? > > > > Goes up or down up to 3% on a bad day. Anything less is noise for me. > > Ok - I expect repeatability to be < 1% and ideally < 0.1%. > On a private LAN at least. :^) > > > > Have you tried pinning the test processes to a particular CPU > > > with taskset? > > > > No. Why will this help? > > cacheline ping-ponging will be the same between test runs. > > Did you see the difference in IPoIB numbers that I posted > earlier where I pegged the test processes to the same CPU > taking interrupts or a different CPU? > > For netperf, this was especially important for the system > running "netserver" process. > > grant No - link? -- I dont speak for Mellanox _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
