netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] qlge: Increase default TX/RX ring size to 1024.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ron.mercer@...gic.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] qlge: Increase default TX/RX ring size to
 1024.

From: Ron Mercer <ron.mercer@...gic.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:21:59 -0700

>> This is huge.  Even other aggressive NICs such as BNX2X only use 256
>> ring entries per TX queue.
>> 
>> There is a point where increasing definitely hurts, because you're
>> increasing the resident set size of the cpu, as more and more SKBs are
>> effectively "in flight" at a given time and only due to the amount
>> you're allowing to get queued up into the chip.
>> 
>> And with multiqueue, per-queue TX queue sizes should matter less at
>> least to some extent.
>> 
>> Are you sure that jacking the value up this high has no negative side
>> effects for various workloads?
> 
> Just drop this patch for now.  I looked at our spreadsheet and ran the
> tests again and we see a (marginal) throughput increase that leveled off
> at TXQ length of 1024.  In light of yours and Stephens comments I prefer
> to revisit this issue.

Ok, thanks.
--
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