[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50046EB1.5040909@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:42:41 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"yevgenyp@...lanox.co.il" <yevgenyp@...lanox.co.il>,
"ogerlitz@...lanox.com" <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
"amirv@...lanox.com" <amirv@...lanox.com>,
"brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"anton@...ba.org" <anton@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput
On 07/16/2012 12:06 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> What is the effect on packet-per-second performance? (eg aggregate,
>> burst-mode netperf TCP_RR with TCP_NODELAY set or perhaps UDP_RR)
>>
> I used uperf with TCP_NODELAY and 16 threads sending from another
> machine 64000-sized writes for 60 seconds.
>
> I get 5898op/s (3.02Gb/s) without the patch against 18022ops/s
> (9.23Gb/s) with the patch.
I was thinking more along the lines of an additional comparison,
explicitly using netperf TCP_RR or something like it, not just the
packets per second from a bulk transfer test.
rick
--
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