[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50580CDF.5050108@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:55:43 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
tushar.n.dave@...el.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
mirqus@...il.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net] e1000: Small packets may get corrupted during padding by
HW
On 9/17/2012 10:45 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 20:27 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> It also just occurred to me that there might be some benefit in cache
>> aligning the max header size. It seems like doing something like that
>> should reduce the overall memory footprint and would probably improve
>> performance.
> Given that most ACK packets are 66 bytes (14 ethernet + 20 IP + 32 TCP),
> I am not sure we need to make any tweak on alignment ?
I'm honestly not sure myself. I will probably spend a few hours
tomorrow tweaking a few things to test and see if there is any gain to
be had there. The only reason why it occurred to me is that it really
isn't too far off from what we did back on the Rx side, except for there
we were aligning at the start of the buffer and working our way up.
Thanks,
Alex
--
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