[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aKwWiGkbDyEOS9-z@localhost>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:53:44 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v2] igb: Convert Tx timestamping to PTP aux
worker
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 09:29:36AM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> Also I couldn't really see a performance degradation with ntpperf.
I was testing with an I350, not I210. Could that make a difference?
> In my
> tests the IRQ variant reached an equal or higher rate. But sometimes I
> get 'Could not send requests at rate X'. No idea what that means.
That's ntpperf giving up as the HW is too slow to send requests at
that rate (with a single process calling sendmmsg() in a loop). You
can add the -l option to force ntpperf to continue, but the printed
rate values will no longer be accurate, you would need to measure it
by some other way, e.g. by monitoring the interface packet counters.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists