[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081026123442.GA31506@ioremap.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:34:42 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de, mingo@...e.hu,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: tbench wrt. loopback TSO
Hi.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:14:08PM -0700, David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
>
> I got curious about this aspect of the investigation so I wanted
> to see it first-hand :-)
>
> To be honest, this reported effect of disabling TSO in the loopback
> driver surprised me because:
>
> 1) If the benchmark is doing small writes, TSO should have zero
> effect. The TSO logic won't kick in.
But GSO will try to create a huge packet and that overhead will not be
overweighted?
That's what I got with the current tree for 8 threads on a 4-way 32-bit
Xeons (2 physical CPUs) and 8gb of ram:
gso/tso off: 361.367
tso/gso on: 354.635
Disabled/enabled via ethtools: -k tso off/on gso off/on
> 2) If larger than MTU writes are being done, TSO should help,
> and this is supported by other benchmarks :-)
Yes, that's where it is useful.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists