[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090119084051.GB4788@ff.dom.local>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:40:52 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
zbr@...emap.net, dada1@...mosbay.com, ben@...s.com, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 07:14:20AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 07:27:19PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> > Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:08:44 +1100
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 01:42:06AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just for the record, I've now re-integrated those changes in a test kernel
> > > > that I booted on my 10gig machines. I have updated my user-space code in
> > > > haproxy to run a new series of tests. Eventhough there is a memcpy(), the
> > > > results are EXCELLENT (on a C2D 2.66 GHz using Myricom's Myri10GE NICs) :
> > > >
> > > > - 4.8 Gbps at 100% CPU using MTU=1500 without LRO
> > > > (3.2 Gbps at 100% CPU without splice)
> > >
> > > One thing to note is that Myricom's driver probably uses page
> > > frags which means that you're not actually triggering the copy.
>
> So does this mean that the corruption problem should still there for
> such a driver ? I'm asking before testing, because at these speeds,
> validity tests are not that easy ;-)
I guess, David meant the performance: there is not much change because
only a small part could be copied. The most harmed should be jumbo
frames in linear only skbs. But no corruption is expected.
Jarek P.
--
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