[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99737F4847ED0A48AECC9F4A1974A4B80F86F7FFB2@MNEXMB2.qlogic.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:13:10 -0500
From: Amit Salecha <amit.salecha@...gic.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ameen Rahman <ameen.rahman@...gic.com>,
Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH NEXT 3/5] qlcnic: vlan lro support
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:57 PM
> To: Amit Salecha
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Ameen Rahman; Anirban
> Chakraborty
> Subject: Re: [PATCH NEXT 3/5] qlcnic: vlan lro support
>
> Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 à 06:14 -0700, Amit Kumar Salecha a écrit :
> > LRO + GRO + vlan rx accleration support, performance increases
> > around 20% and cpu utilization reduces around 70% on vlan interface.
>
> Interesting. What is the workload that demonstrates such gains ?
>
I ran iperf (tcp) with 8 thread without these patches and with these patches.
What kind of test community expect ?
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists