[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49F1B468.7020605@myri.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:45:28 -0400
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, brice@...i.com,
sgruszka@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] myr10ge: again fix lro_gen_skb() alignment
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:37:24AM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>> I booted the sender into a kernel.org 2.6.18.2 so as to try to have
>> results as close to yours as possible (I was running 2.6.22 on the
>> sender before).
>
> OK I've got my hands on a myricom card. I've tested it using the
> same 2.6.18 sender that I used against the eariler cxgb3 test.
> I wasn't able to discern any significant deviations between LRO
> and GRO.
>
> Unfortunately it seems that this machine is a little too fast
> so even with the IRQ bound to a single CPU it's way overspeced
> for 10GbE:
>
> Idle at 10Gb IRQ rate soaker IRQ rate soaker throuput
> GRO 43-45 14700 13300 7933
> LRO 43-45 14700 13300 7943
>
> But even with the soaker running they seem to be neck and neck.
This is strange. I wonder if it might be a cache footprint issue?
My intentionally weak receiver is an athlon64 x2 "Toledo", and
has only 512KB L2 cache. I can re-test with a core-2 based Xeon.
But can you describe your setup in more detail? What CPU does the
receiver have? You say the sender is running 2.6.18. Is this
a RHEL5 kernel, or a kernel.org kernel?
> Here's the patch I used BTW. I got the checksums to work by
> just setting skb->csum.
Yes, sorry about that stupidity.
Drew
--
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