netdev - Re: Latency difference between fifo and pfifo

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:	Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:51:36 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	"John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@...nsourcedevel.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Latency difference between fifo and pfifo_fast

Le mardi 06 décembre 2011 à 03:39 -0500, John A. Sullivan III a écrit :

> > ifconfig eth2 txqueuelen 0
> > tc qdisc add dev eth2 root pfifo
> > tc qdisc del dev eth2 root
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> Really? I didn't know one could do that.  Thanks.  However, with no
> queue length, do I have a significant risk of dropping packets? To
> answer your other response's question, these are Intel quad port e1000
> cards.  We are frequently pushing them to near line speed so
> 1,000,000,000 / 1534 / 8 = 81,486 pps - John

You can remove qdisc layer, since NIC itself has a TX ring queue

(check exact value with ethtool -g ethX)

# ethtool -g eth2
Ring parameters for eth2:
Pre-set maximums:
RX:		4078
RX Mini:	0
RX Jumbo:	0
TX:		4078
Current hardware settings:
RX:		254
RX Mini:	0
RX Jumbo:	0
TX:		4078      ---- HERE ----



--
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