| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
| From: | P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:56:30 +0100 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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: | <1119469066.6918.168.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <42A5284C.3060808@xxxxxxxx> <1118147904.6320.108.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0506071351080.16594@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050621.133704.08321534.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42B92490.40005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1119469066.6918.168.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040124 |
jamal wrote: On Wed, 2005-22-06 at 09:42 +0100, P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: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.Was this machine SMP? Yes. 2 x 3.4GHz P4s 1 logical CPU per port (irq affinity) 1 thread (NB on same logical CPU as irq (sched_affinity)) to do user space per packet processing. NAPI involved? Yep. I take it nothing interfering in the middle with the headers? It uses the standard path to PACKET_MMAP buffer e1000_clean_rx_irq -> netif_receive_skb -> tpacket_rcv Pádraig. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch] devinet: cleanup if statements, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |