[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070819.161206.94555994.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: andi@...stfloor.org
Cc: felix@...lsio.com, jeff@...zik.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rdreier@...co.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH RFC] RDMA/CMA: Allocate
PS_TCPportsfrom the host TCP port space.
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Date: 20 Aug 2007 01:27:35 +0200
> "Felix Marti" <felix@...lsio.com> writes:
>
> > what benefits does the TSO infrastructure give the
> > non-TSO capable devices?
>
> It improves performance on software queueing devices between guests
> and hypervisors. This is a more and more important application these
> days. Even when the system running the Hypervisor has a non TSO
> capable device in the end it'll still save CPU cycles this way. Right now
> virtualized IO tends to much more CPU intensive than direct IO so any
> help it can get is beneficial.
>
> It also makes loopback faster, although given that's probably not that
> useful.
>
> And a lot of the "TSO infrastructure" was needed for zero copy TX anyways,
> which benefits most reasonable modern NICs (anything with hardware
> checksumming)
And also, you can enable TSO generation for a non-TSO-hw device and
get all of the segmentation overhead reduction gains which works out
as a pure win as long as the device can at a minimum do checksumming.
-
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