| To: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1 |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 8 Nov 2002 06:30:53 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>, "'netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3DCAF76A.9080409@candelatech.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Ben Greear wrote:
> Any ideas for what to try next? What about upping the skb-hotlist to
> 1024 or so? Maybe also pre-load it with buffers to make it less likely we'll
> run low? (Rx-Drops means it could not allocate a buffer, right?)
>
You seem to be using that patch of yours where you route to yourself?
Well, since you are up for it:
- try with two ports only; eth0->eth1 and vary then vary RX ring
{32, 64,128,256,512,1024}
- send at least 1 minute worth of data at wire rate
a) small packets 64 bytes
b) repeat with MTU sized packets
Repeat above with eth0->eth1, eth2->eth3
also try where machine is a router and you have a source/sink host
cheers,
jamal
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH,RFC] explicit connection confirmation, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH,RFC] explicit connection confirmation, bert hubert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |