network load 8245 vs. 8347E

[Marc Leeman]

> How are you measuring load?  I'm assuming the 8245 and 8347 are using  
> the same kernel.

Simply the load of the processor. The 8245 is running ppc/2.6.17, the
8347e is running powerpc/2.6.21.1.

The 8245 kernel is not being upgraded anymore since 
 1. we're not using them anymore on the new designs
 2. I didn't bother fixing the board support after the interrupt
    handling changed in 2.6.18 because of 1.

Disabling NAPI seems to improve the situation a bit, but there's still a
load difference 25% on a marginally faster processor.

Mem: 10788K used, 116940K free, 0K shrd, 0K buff, 4212K cached
Load average: 0.39 0.43 0.29
  PID USER     STATUS   VSZ  PPID %CPU %MEM COMMAND
  361 barco    SW       152   270 30.8  0.1 recv
 2222 barco    RW      1124   270  0.3  0.8 top
  119 root     SW      1216     1  0.0  0.9 dropbear
  270 barco    SW      1132     1  0.0  0.8 sh
   94 root     SW      1132     1  0.0  0.8 syslogd
    1 root     SW      1128     0  0.0  0.8 init
   95 root     SW      1112     1  0.0  0.8 klogd

Mem: 8144K used, 20944K free, 0K shrd, 888K buff, 2384K cached
Load average: 0.00 0.00 0.00  (Status: S=sleeping R=running, W=waiting)
  PID USER     STATUS   RSS  PPID %CPU %MEM COMMAND
  407 barco    R        124     1  6.4  0.4 recv
  510 root     S        668   130  0.7  2.2 dropbear
13889 root     R        368  7377  0.3  1.2 top
  511 barco    S        476   510  0.0  1.6 sh
   52 root     S        376     1  0.0  1.2 syslogd
    1 root     S        352     0  0.0  1.2 init
   59 root     S        340     1  0.0  1.1 klogd


-- 
  greetz, marc
Oh no, no, no, no I don't boogie.
	Crichton - Won't Get Fooled Again
chiana 2.6.18-4-ixp4xx #1 Tue Mar 27 18:01:56 BST 2007 GNU/Linux
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20070621/f8cffeab/attachment.pgp>