Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:40:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx02.cybersurf.com (mx02.cybersurf.com [209.197.145.105]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iB1Debev022056 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:40:41 -0800 Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21]) by mx02.cybersurf.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CZUiL-0006Ct-BZ for netdev@oss.sgi.com; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:40:13 -0500 Received: from cpe0030ab124d2f-cm014500000962.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([24.103.99.32] helo=[10.0.0.9]) by mail.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1CZUiH-000245-JX; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:40:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit From: jamal Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca To: mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it Cc: Lennert Buytenhek , Harald Welte , P@draigBrady.com, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jorge Manuel Finochietto , Giulio Galante , netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <1101804146.11111.23.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it> References: <1101467291.24742.70.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it> <41A73826.3000109@draigBrady.com> <1101483081.24742.174.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it> <20041127092503.GA12592@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <1101718412.14930.46.camel@verza.polito.it> <20041129145028.GC18788@xi.wantstofly.org> <1101804146.11111.23.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: jamalopolous Message-Id: <1101903944.1042.29.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 01 Dec 2004 07:25:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 12364 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: hadi@cyberus.ca Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 03:42, Marco Mellia wrote: > On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 15:50, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:53:33AM +0100, Marco Mellia wrote: > > > > > Th's our intuition too. > > > Notice that we get the same results with 3com (broadcom based) gigabit > > > cards. > > > We are thinking of sending packet in "bursts" instead of single > > > transfers. The only problem is to let the NIC know that there are more > > > than a packet in a burst... > > > > Jamal implemented exactly this for e1000 already, he might be persuaded > > into posting his patch here. Jamal? :) > > I guess that saying that we are _very_ interested in this might help. > :-) > We can offer as "beta-testers" as well... Sorry missed this (I wasnt CCed so it went to a low priority queue which i read on a best effort basis). Let me clean up the patches a little bit this weekend. The patch is at least 4 months old; latest reincarnation was due to issue1 on my SUCON presentation. Would a patch against latest 2.6.x bitkeeper (whatever it is this weekend) be fine? If you are in a rush and dont mind a little ugliness then i will pass them as is. BTW, Scott posted a interesting patch yesterday, you may wanna give that a shot as well. cheers, jamal