[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:39:47 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: gaagaan@...il.com, general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hadi@...erus.ca,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, jagana@...ibm.com, jeff@...zik.org,
johnpol@....mipt.ru, kaber@...sh.net, kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com,
mcarlson@...adcom.com, mchan@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, rdreier@...co.com,
rick.jones2@...com, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, sri@...ibm.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
xma@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9 Rev3] Implement batching skb API and support in IPoIB
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote on 08/08/2007 04:19:00 PM:
> From: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:01:14 +0530
>
> > RESULTS: The performance improvement for TCP No Delay is in the range
of -8%
> > to 320% (with -8% being the sole negative), with many individual
tests
> > giving 50% or more improvement (I think it is to do with the hw
slots
> > getting full quicker resulting in more batching when the queue gets
> > woken). The results for TCP is in the range of -11% to 93%, with
most
> > of the tests (8/12) giving improvements.
>
> Not because I think it obviates your work, but rather because I'm
> curious, could you test a TSO-in-hardware driver converted to
> batching and see how TSO alone compares to batching for a pure
> TCP workload?
>
> I personally don't think it will help for that case at all as
> TSO likely does better job of coalescing the work _and_ reducing
> bus traffic as well as work in the TCP stack.
Definitely, I will try to do this.
What do you generally think of the patch/implementation ? :)
thanks,
- KK
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists