[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1322556234.2970.84.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:43:54 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] bql: Byte Queue Limits
Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 09:37 +0100, Dave Taht a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:23 AM, John Fastabend
> <john.r.fastabend@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if we should consider enabling TSO/GSO per queue or per traffic
> > class on devices that support this. At least in devices that support
> > multiple traffic classes it seems to be a common usage case to put bulk
> > storage traffic (iSCSI) on a traffic class and low latency traffic on a
> > separate traffic class, VoIP for example.
>
>
> VOIP is a drop in the bucket.
>
> Turning TSO off on TCP exiting the datacenter (or more specifically),
> destined anywhere there is potential tx/rx bandwidth disparity
> would be goooooood.
>
If your cpu is fast enough (and they are most of the time), this makes
no difference at all.
Instead of consuming 3% of cpu with TSO, you'll consume 10% or 15% and
no difference seen on the wire.
Really, if you want to avoid bursts, TSO has litle to do with them.
--
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