netdev - Re: [PATCH iwl-next v2] igb: Convert Tx timestamping to PTP aux worker

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c933ffe8-c3da-494b-8704-a0fbb1939a7c@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 09:21:20 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Miroslav Lichvar
	<mlichvar@...hat.com>
CC: 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 8/27/2025 7:52 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 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

Right. If we can get further reproduction of this setup that would be good.

Thanks,
Jake


Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (237 bytes)