[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19367.45417.306750.626323@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:05:29 +0100
From: Robert Olsson <robert@...julf.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Robert Olsson <robert@...julf.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
olofh@....se
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pktgen node allocation
Eric Dumazet writes:
> > Result "manually" tuned.
> >
> > eth0 9617.7 M bit/s 822 k pps
> > eth1 9619.1 M bit/s 823 k pps
> > eth2 9619.1 M bit/s 823 k pps
> > eth3 9619.2 M bit/s 823 k pps
> > eth4 5995.2 M bit/s 512 k pps <- PCIe-x8
> > eth5 5995.3 M bit/s 512 k pps <- PCIe-x8
> > eth6 9619.2 M bit/s 823 k pps
> > eth7 9619.2 M bit/s 823 k pps
> > eth8 9619.1 M bit/s 823 k pps
> > eth9 9619.0 M bit/s 823 k pps
> >
> > > 90 Gbit/s
DMA potential this box is about four 10g ports.
> > Result "manually" mistuned by switching node 0 and 1.
> >
> > eth0 9613.6 M bit/s 822 k pps
> > eth1 9614.9 M bit/s 822 k pps
> > eth2 9615.0 M bit/s 822 k pps
> > eth3 9615.1 M bit/s 822 k pps
> > eth4 2918.5 M bit/s 249 k pps <- PCIe-x8
> > eth5 2918.4 M bit/s 249 k pps <- PCIe-x8
> > eth6 8597.0 M bit/s 735 k pps
> > eth7 8597.0 M bit/s 735 k pps
> > eth8 8568.3 M bit/s 733 k pps
> > eth9 8568.3 M bit/s 733 k pps
> >
> I wonder why eth0-eth3 results are unchanged after a node flip.
Yes it's strange.
With clone_skb=1 we could see differences with just one GIGE interface
using 64 byte pkts so it might be very different on 10g. We're getting
unfortunely closer to hardware...
Cheers
--ro
--
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