netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] qlge: Increase default TX/RX ring size to 1024.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:34:19 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	ron.mercer@...gic.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] qlge: Increase default TX/RX ring size to
 1024.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ron Mercer <ron.mercer@...gic.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:49:35 -0700
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ron Mercer <ron.mercer@...gic.com>
> 
> This is huge.  Even other aggressive NICs such as BNX2X only use 256
> ring entries per TX queue.
> 
> There is a point where increasing definitely hurts, because you're
> increasing the resident set size of the cpu, as more and more SKBs are
> effectively "in flight" at a given time and only due to the amount
> you're allowing to get queued up into the chip.
> 
> And with multiqueue, per-queue TX queue sizes should matter less at
> least to some extent.
> 
> Are you sure that jacking the value up this high has no negative side
> effects for various workloads?

I am investigating reducing the sky2 default tx ring size down to
128 after user complaints about the latency. At 10G 1024 ring
entries is 7ms for jumbo frames.
--
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