[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF0A3AFFAB.FFA8088C-ON652576B1.001D7B08-652576B1.0042980B@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:49:18 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices?
Hi Dave,
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote on 01/15/2010 02:48:29 PM:
>
> Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices?
>
> From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:50:04 +0530
>
> > I wonder if there is some other way to test it. I could test it on
> > the card I have, cxgbe, by ethtool F_SG off, and then testing
> > this patch with existing code (both with ethtool F_SG off)? Will
> > that be enough to get an idea, or I cannot assume this is
> > reasonable for real non-sg drivers? I am sure there is a
> > degradation, and mentioned that part as a "penalty" for those
> > drivers in my patch.
>
> I think such a test would provide useful data by which to judge this
> change.
I had to remove the F_SG flag from cxgb3 driver (using ethtool
didn't show any difference in performance since GSO was enabled
on the device due to register_netdev setting it). Testing show a
drop of 25% in performance with this patch for non-SG device,
the extra alloc/memcpy is showing up.
For the SG driver, I get a good performace gain (not anywhere
close to 25% though). What do you suggest?
Thanks,
- KK
--
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