On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 03:02:13PM +0800, Herbert Xu (herbert@gondor.apana.org.au) wrote:

quoted

$ cat /proc/interrupts 
CPU0       
0:         71    XT-PIC-XT        timer
1:          8    XT-PIC-XT        i8042
2:          0    XT-PIC-XT        cascade
5:      17606    XT-PIC-XT        eth0
12:          5    XT-PIC-XT        i8042
14:       6925    XT-PIC-XT        ide0
15:        141    XT-PIC-XT        ide1
NMI:          0   Non-maskable interrupts
LOC:    1190668   Local timer interrupts
RES:          0   Rescheduling interrupts
CAL:          0   function call interrupts
TLB:          0   TLB shootdowns
TRM:          0   Thermal event interrupts
SPU:          0   Spurious interrupts
ERR:          0
MIS:          0

OK you're on FV as well.  I'll try it on my laptaop next.

How did you find that? :)

quoted

Shouldn't tests over loopback be like lots of memcpy in the userspace
process? Usually its performance is close enough to the kernel's range,
despite very different sizes of TLB entries.

Where it may differ is when you have context switches.

Yes, of course, even single empty syscall may potentially force process
the be scheduled away, bit still performance will not be with 24/190
ratio... Weird.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov