[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20141006.175410.2083551367207718756.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:54:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: amirv@...lanox.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
yevgenyp@...lanox.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, idos@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: introduce netdevice gso_min_segs
attribute
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:42:58 -0700
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 17:21 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>
>> So exactly what value are you using for mlx4?
>>
>
> It seems that on ConnectX-3 family, TSO packets of 2 or 3 MSS are not
> worth using TSO engine. The cutoff point seems to be 4 (same throughput)
>
> So I was planning to use gso_min_segs = 4 only for them.
>
>> Because I wonder if we should just generically forfeit TSO unless
>> we have > 2 segments, for example.
>
> When I tested on bnx2x, this was not a gain.
>
> bnx2x is faster sending TSO packets, even if they have 2 MSS.
>
> I'll try the experiment on I40E Intel cards.
Ok I'm sold on your patch then if two major chipsets already benefit
from differing values.
I'll apply this, thanks Eric.
--
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