| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
| From: | P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:42:56 +0100 |
| Cc: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, mitch.a.williams@xxxxxxxxx, john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx, mchan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx, jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050621.133704.08321534.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <42A5284C.3060808@xxxxxxxx> <1118147904.6320.108.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0506071351080.16594@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050621.133704.08321534.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040124 |
David S. Miller wrote: Also, e1000 sends full MTU sized SKBs down into the stack even if the packet is very small. This also hurts performance a lot. As discussed elsewhere, it should use a "small packet" cut-off just like other drivers do. If the RX frame is less than this cut-off value, a new smaller sized SKB is allocated and the RX data copied into it. The RX ring SKB is left in-place and given back to the chip. Yes the copy is essentially free here as the data is already cached. As a data point, I went the whole hog and used buffer recycling in my essentially packet sniffing application. I.E. there are no allocs per packet at all, and this make a HUGE difference. On a 2x3.4GHz 2xe1000 system I can receive 620Kpps per port sustained into my userspace app which does a LOT of processing per packet. Without the buffer recycling is was around 250Kpps. Note I don't reuse an skb until the packet is copied into a PACKET_MMAP buffer. -- Pádraig Brady - http://www.pixelbeat.org -- |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] Micro optimization in eth_header(), Denis Vlasenko |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] tcp: efficient port randomistion (rev 3), Michael Vittrup Larsen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Eric Dumazet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |