| To: | Jason Lunz <lunz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes] |
| From: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:27:38 +0100 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <slrnb86c3g.7vo.lunz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <16003.11449.497905.815776@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <slrnb86c3g.7vo.lunz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Jason Lunz writes: > I've seen pretty much the same thing. I plotted throughput vs. offered > load for e1000 4.4.12-k1, 4.4.19-k3, and 5.0.43-k1 (all backported to > 2.4.20). A summary with graphs is at: > > http://gtf.org/lunz/linux/net/perf/ Illustrative. > 5.0.43 seems to be a significant regression, both in terms of throughput > and CPU load. Can you test the patch I sent for 5.0.43 with your equipment/setup? Cheers. --ro |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: ?completeness of IPsec feature-set, Pekka Savola |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: ?completeness of IPsec feature-set, bert hubert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes], Jason Lunz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes], Jason Lunz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |