netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BCM5704 performance questions.

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: BCM5704 performance questions.
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:03:03 -0700
Cc: "'netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <42AA0C9D.2060006@candelatech.com>
References: <42A8E0FE.3020708@candelatech.com> <1118361376.5838.20.camel@rh4> <42A8EBDA.6010306@candelatech.com> <1118363861.5838.29.camel@rh4> <42AA016C.9050801@candelatech.com> <42AA0743.1020101@hp.com> <42AA0C9D.2060006@candelatech.com>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304

There will be a bridge chip, and indeed I see better performance when I just use a 2-port Intel NIC as opposed to a 4 port, even if I am only actively using 2 of the 4 ports on the 4-port NIC. For the tg3 hardware I only have a
4-port NIC. I do assume that a 2-port tg3 NIC w/out a bridge chip would be
faster..but probably not too much.

I have been taught by several wise old engineers that the proper spelling of assume is ass-u-me :)


Bridge chips can in theory do all sorts of nasty things to performance.

CKO == IP checksum offload?


Yes.


Since Dave doesn't want to debug my bridge setup (and I don't blame him), I
am going to try to focus my testing/debug reports on the pktgen tests. If/when pktgen shows better performance with tg3, I can verify that I see the
same speedups with my proprietary bridging module. I've no idea if CKO would
help or hinder pktgen, nor have I tried to enable or disable it.


Are your interface interrupts distributed across the CPUs?


I'm using FC2, basically a default install.  It does seem to have an irq
balance daemon running.  But, I'm not specifically binding IRQs or anything
like that.  pktgen tx is running as a single thread, so the rx code could run
mostly on the other CPU if locking allows...

again, never ass-u-me.

rick

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>