[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250827145235.6ph_Wzn8@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:52:35 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Cc: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...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>,
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 2025-08-27 16:41:09 [+0200], Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> From the results I posted before, the machine (CPU Intel E3-1220) with
> the I350 NIC can provide about 59k HW TX timestamps per second without
> any of the patches, about 41k with the original patch, and about 52k
> with this patch and pinned aux worker.
I might have similar hardware with a i350 to give it a try.
The old worker approach and the pinned AUX worker are identical from
software design (or: I am not aware of any significant differences worth
to mention here). Therefore I don't understand why the one had 59k and
the other 52k.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists