[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061011142957.5bd42784@freekitty>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:29:57 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
Cc: Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
openib-general@...nib.org, rolandd@...co.com
Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
O
> >
> > You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
> > to see if there is a performance gain. It wouldn't be hard to test
> > a modified version and validate the performance change.
>
> Yes. With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.
>
> > You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
> > to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.
>
> I can. But as network algorithmics says (chapter 5)
> "Since such bus reads are expensive, the CPU might as well piggyback
> the checksum computation with the copy process".
>
> It speaks about onboard the adapter buffers, but memory bus reads are also much slower
> than CPU nowdays. So I think even if this works well in benchmark in real life
> single copy should better.
>
The other alternative might be to make copy/checksum code smarter about using
fragments rather than allocating a large buffer. It should avoid second order
allocations (effective size > PAGESIZE).
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists