[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000

To: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000
From: ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: 11 Sep 2002 03:11:49 -0600
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <18563262.1031269721@[]>
References: <20020905.204721.49430679.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <18563262.1031269721@[]>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
"Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> > Ie. the headers that don't need to go across the bus are the critical
> > resource saved by TSO.
> I'm not sure that's entirely true in this case - the Netfinity
> 8500R is slightly unusual in that it has 3 or 4 PCI buses, and
> there's 4 - 8 gigabit ethernet cards in this beast spread around
> different buses (Troy - are we still just using 4? ... and what's
> the raw bandwidth of data we're pushing? ... it's not huge). 
> I think we're CPU limited (there's no idle time on this machine), 
> which is odd for an 8 CPU 900MHz P3 Xeon,

Quite possibly.  The P3 has roughly an 800MB/s FSB bandwidth, that must
be used for both I/O and memory accesses.  So just driving a gige card at
wire speed takes a considerable portion of the cpus capacity.  

On analyzing this kind of thing I usually find it quite helpful to
compute what the hardware can theoretically to get a feel where the
bottlenecks should be.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>