[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D174AC1A3@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:20:08 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Eric Dumazet' <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.com>,
"Or Gerlitz" <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Ido Shamay <idos@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] net: introduce netdevice gso_min_segs attribute
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Some TSO engines might have a too heavy setup cost, that impacts
> performance on hosts sending small bursts (2 MSS per packet).
>
> This patch adds a device gso_min_segs, allowing drivers to set
> a minimum segment size for TSO packets, according to the NIC
> performance.
>
> Tested on a mlx4 NIC, this allows to get a ~110% increase of
> throughput when sending 2 MSS per packet.
Doesn't this all depend on what you need to optimise for.
I can think of three^Wseveral main cases:
1) minimising cpu use while saturating the local network.
2) minimising latency for single packets.
3) maximising throughput for a single connection.
4) minimising cpu use when handling a large number of connections.
plus all the variations in packet size.
I'm not sure what you are trading for what here.
Maybe gso = tx_bursting is almost always faster on some hardware?
(Especially if an idle mac engine is 'kicked' for the first packet
of a burst.)
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists