[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit

To: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit
From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:25:31 +0100
Cc: sfeldma@xxxxxxxxx, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mellia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, e1000-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jorge Manuel Finochietto <jorge.finochietto@xxxxxxxxx>, Giulio Galante <galante@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
References: <1101499285.1079.45.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1101821501.1043.43.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1101824754.1044.126.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <> <> <1101919791.5198.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 07:23:24PM +0100, Robert Olsson wrote:

> Below is little patch to clean skb at xmit. It's old jungle trick Jamal
> and I used w. tulip. Note we can now even decrease the size of TX ring.
> It can increase TX performance from 800 kpps to
>   1125128pps 576Mb/sec (576065536bps) errors: 0
>   1124946pps 575Mb/sec (575972352bps) errors: 0
> But suffers from scheduling problems as the previous patch. Often we just get
>   582108pps 298Mb/sec (298039296bps) errors: 0

Robert, there is something weird with your setup with packets sizes under
160 bytes.  Can you check if you also get wildly variable numbers on a
baseline kernel perhaps?  The numbers you sent me of packet size vs. pps
were very jumpy as well, even at 10M pkts per run.


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