Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:10:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from orb.pobox.com (orb.pobox.com [207.8.226.5]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iB5LA8Ov006419 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:10:08 -0800 Received: from orb (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184B12F8E28; Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.19] (wbar2.sea1-4-5-062-153.sea1.dsl-verizon.net [4.5.62.153]) by orb.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4307A2F9BE6; Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:09:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit) From: Scott Feldman Reply-To: sfeldma@pobox.com To: Martin Josefsson Cc: Lennert Buytenhek , jamal , Robert Olsson , P@draigBrady.com, mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jorge Manuel Finochietto , Giulio Galante , netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: References: <1101499285.1079.45.camel@jzny.localdomain> <16811.8052.678955.795327@robur.slu.se> <1101821501.1043.43.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20041130134600.GA31515@xi.wantstofly.org> <1101824754.1044.126.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20041201001107.GE4203@xi.wantstofly.org> <1101863399.4663.54.camel@sfeldma-mobl.dsl-verizon.net> <20041201182943.GA14470@xi.wantstofly.org> <20041201213550.GF14470@xi.wantstofly.org> <1101967983.4782.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20041205145051.GA647@xi.wantstofly.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1102281141.3343.138.camel@sfeldma-mobl.dsl-verizon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:12:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 12446 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: sfeldma@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 07:03, Martin Josefsson wrote: > BUT if I use the above + prefetching I get this: > > 60 1483890 Ok, proof that we can get to 1.4Mpps! That's the good news. The bad news is prefetching is potentially buggy as pointed out in the freebsd note. Buggy as in the controller may hang. Sorry, I don't have details on what conditions are necessary to cause a hang. Would Martin or Lennert run these test for a longer duration so we can get some data, maybe adding in Rx. It could be that removing the Tx interrupts and descriptor write-backs, prefetching may be ok. I don't know. Intel? Also, wouldn't it be great if someone wrote a document capturing all of the accumulated knowledge for future generations? -scott