netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/4] gianfar: Use separate NAPI for Tx confirmation processing

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:	Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:24:23 -0400
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/4] gianfar: Use separate NAPI for Tx
 confirmation processing

[[RFC net-next 0/4] gianfar: Use separate NAPI for Tx confirmation processing] On 08/08/2012 (Wed 15:26) Claudiu Manoil wrote:

> Hi all,
> This set of patches basically splits the existing napi poll routine into
> two separate napi functions, one for Rx processing (triggered by frame
> receive interrupts only) and one for the Tx confirmation path processing
> (triggerred by Tx confirmation interrupts only). The polling algorithm
> behind remains much the same.
> 
> Important throughput improvements have been noted on low power boards with
> this set of changes.
> For instance, for the following netperf test:
> netperf -l 20 -cC -H 192.168.10.1 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 1500
> yields a throughput gain from oscilating ~500-~700 Mbps to steady ~940 Mbps,
> (if the Rx/Tx paths are processed on different cores), w/ no increase in CPU%,
> on a p1020rdb - 2 core machine featuring etsec2.0 (Multi-Queue Multi-Group
> driver mode).

It would be interesting to know more about what was causing that large
an oscillation -- presumably you will have it reappear once one core
becomes 100% utilized.  Also, any thoughts on how the change will change
performance on an older low power single core gianfar system (e.g.  83xx)?

P.
--

> 
> Also, this change, which should ballance Rx and Tx processing, proves to
> be effective against Rx busy interrupt occurrences.
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> Claudiu
> 
> 
> Claudiu Manoil (4):
>   gianfar: Remove redundant programming of [rt]xic registers
>   gianfar: Clear ievent from interrupt handler for [RT]x int
>   gianfar: Separate out the Rx and Tx coalescing functions
>   gianfar: Use separate NAPIs for Tx and Rx processing
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c |  220 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.h |   16 ++-
>  2 files changed, 171 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> 
> 
--
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