[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5005C6A0.50002@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:10:08 -0500
From: Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"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>,
"leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput
On 07/17/2012 01:17 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 10:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012
>> 10:27:57 -0700
>>
>>> That seems rather extraordinarily low - Power7 is supposed to be
>>> a rather high performance CPU. The last time I noticed
>>> O(3Gbit/s) on 10G for bulk transfer was before the advent of
>>> LRO/GRO - that was in the x86 space though. Is mapping really
>>> that expensive with Power7?
>>
>> Unfortunately, IOMMU mappings are incredibly expensive. I see
>> effects like this on Sparc too.
>
> OK, so that has caused some dimm memory to get a small refresh - it
> ends up being akin to if not actually a PIO yes? I recall schemes in
> drivers in other stacks whereby "small" packets were copied because
> it was cheaper to allocate/copy then it was to remap.
On Power it ends up being an hcall to the hypervisor
-Brian
--
Brian King
Power Linux I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
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