Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pizda.ninka.net (IDENT:root@pizda.ninka.net [216.101.162.242]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h5E6Cn2x008216 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:12:49 -0700 Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04025; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:08:50 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20030613.230850.85410095.davem@redhat.com> To: ltd@cisco.com Cc: anton@samba.org, haveblue@us.ibm.com, hdierks@us.ibm.com, scott.feldman@intel.com, dwg@au1.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, milliner@us.ibm.com, ricardoz@us.ibm.com, twichell@us.ibm.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030614154954.026b4768@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030614114755.036abbb0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> <20030613.224122.104034261.davem@redhat.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030614154954.026b4768@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 3234 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: davem@redhat.com Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev From: Lincoln Dale Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:52:35 +1000 can we have the TCP retransmit side take a performance hit if it needs to realign buffers? You don't understand, the person who mangles the packet must make the copy, not the person not doing the packet modifications. for a "high performance app" requiring gigabit-type speeds, ...we probably won't be using ppc64 and e1000 cards, yes, I agree :-) Anton, go to the local computer store and pick up some tg3 cards or a bunch of Taiwan specials :-)