PERFORCE change 166298 for review

[Zhao Shuai]

http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=166298

Change 166298 by zhaoshuai at zhaoshuai on 2009/07/20 11:42:40

	add performance test result

Affected files ...

.. //depot/projects/soc2009/fifo/fifo_test/README#2 edit

Differences ...

==== //depot/projects/soc2009/fifo/fifo_test/README#2 (text+ko) ====

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 All about FIFO testings.
 
 === FUNCTIONALITY TEST ===
-    
+
 	The directory "functionality" contains simple testing programs for FIFO.
 	Each of the fifo core functions is tested separately, including read/write
 	/select/poll/kqueue/sigio. All works well except the one testing fifo 
@@ -30,7 +30,71 @@
 	    suffer from this problem.
 		
 
-=== REGRESSION Test ===
+=== REGRESSION TEST ===
 
 	The directory "regression" contains official regression tests for FIFO.
 	My FIFO code passes all the tests. 
+
+
+=== PERFORMANCE TEST ===
+
+	The performance test takes this paper for reference:
+	http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0164121202001346
+
+	== How To Use ==
+
+	cd into the "performance" directory and build the benchmark program,
+	$ make
+	then run the "runme.sh" script
+	$ ./runme.sh
+
+	== NOTE ==
+
+	The benchmark program employes the producer/consumer model to test the 
+	throughput of the FIFO system. In this model, producer sends messages 
+	and consumer receives messages using FIFO. The elapsed time will be 
+	caculated. Less time we use, more throughput we have.
+	
+	The test is executed 100 times for all combinations of the following 
+	parameters for message size and number of messages transmitted. The 
+	avarage time is caculated and then printed.
+	    - Message size(bytes): 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096
+	    - Number of messages : 100, 1000, 5000, 10000, 100000
+
+	== Results ==
+
+	The performance test was carried out on a Dell Optiplex 960 box with Intel 
+	Core 2 Quad 9400 processor, 4G RAM, and 320G hard disk. FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE 
+	is installed on this machine but the kernel has been updated to 8.0-CURRENT.
+
+	Here is the result obtained under the new fifo implementation (pipe version):
+
+			100	1000	5000	10000	100000	
+		64B	274us	148us	418us	753us	8909us	
+		128B	89us	216us	769us	1545us	17729us	
+		256B	106us	353us	1530us	3700us	35265us	
+		512B	138us	595us	3709us	7310us	70396us	
+		1024B	184us	1183us	7300us	14103us	141104us	
+		2048B	295us	2696us	13929us	29296us	309294us	
+		4096B	502us	5988us	29094us	58351us	583801us	
+
+	Here is the reuslt obtained under the old fifo implementation (socket version):
+
+			100	1000	5000	10000	100000	
+		64B	85us	175us	584us	1126us	11905us	
+		128B	96us	280us	1128us	2171us	23427us	
+		256B	119us	484us	2170us	4559us	53267us	
+		512B	159us	891us	4645us	9276us	109152us	
+		1024B	239us	1732us	9554us	18825us	222931us	
+		2048B	403us	3552us	18939us	38081us	451727us	
+		4096B	723us	7546us	39151us	83753us	905902us	
+
+	From these results, we can see that the new fifo implementation gains little
+	advantage over the old fifo implementation when transfering small amount of data.
+	e.g. transferring 100*128 bytes of data costs 89 microseconds under the new fifo 
+	code while it costs 96 microseconds under the old fifo code. But when transferring 
+	large amount of data, the new fifo implementation gains significant advantage over
+	the old fifo implementation. e.g. it takes 1126 microseconds transferring 10000*64 
+	bytes of data under the old fifo implementation, but under the new fifo implementation,
+	it takes 753 microseconds, saving 30% of time. That is to say, the new fifo system
+	increases the throughput by 30% in this case.