Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/9\]\:\s+TCP\:\s+The\s+Road\s+to\s+Super\s+TSO\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/9\]\:\s+TCP\:\s+The\s+Road\s+to\s+Super\s+TSO\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:08:46 -0700 (PDT); Some folks, notable the S2IO guys, get performance degradation from the Super TSO v2 patch (they get it from the first version as well). It's a real pain to spot what causes such things in such a hug; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00220.html (9,399 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:56:16 -0700; I'll merge these with the TCP infrastructure stuff and send it off to Andrew. Actually, it is more of fix the TCP infrastructure to match TSO + rc6 but you get the ida.; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00231.html (9,643 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:51:33 -0700 (PDT); Probably not a good idea, it's %75 of the implementation of Super TSO and totally conflicts with the super TSO patch. Probably best to keep the existing Super TSO stuff in there until I'm done with t; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00234.html (9,838 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: avem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:40:10 -0400; insmod ipw2100; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00303.html (9,918 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT); etwork to be br; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00306.html (10,247 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:10:47 +1000; make use of it?; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00308.html (9,935 bytes)
7. RE: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:19:34 -0700; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00309.html (10,745 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: u Yi <yi.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:30:27 -0700; and ker-blammo.; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00315.html (9,374 bytes)
9. RE: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:55:13 -0700; done by editing; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00316.html (17,036 bytes)
10. [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:08:46 -0700 (PDT); Some folks, notable the S2IO guys, get performance degradation from the Super TSO v2 patch (they get it from the first version as well). It's a real pain to spot what causes such things in such a hug; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00821.html (9,399 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:56:16 -0700; I'll merge these with the TCP infrastructure stuff and send it off to Andrew. Actually, it is more of fix the TCP infrastructure to match TSO + rc6 but you get the ida.; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00832.html (9,717 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:51:33 -0700 (PDT); Probably not a good idea, it's %75 of the implementation of Super TSO and totally conflicts with the super TSO patch. Probably best to keep the existing Super TSO stuff in there until I'm done with t; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00835.html (9,924 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:40:10 -0400; I'm curious about the details of this. Is there decreased performance relative to current TSO? Relative to no TSO? Sending to just one receiver or many, and is it receiver limited? -John; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00904.html (9,994 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT); The receiver is limited in their tests. No current generation systems can fill a 10gbit pipe fully, especially at 1500 byte MTU. Performance went down, with both TSO enabled and disabled, compared to; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00907.html (10,355 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:10:47 +1000; What was the receiver running? Was the performance degradation more pronounced with TSO enabled? -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00909.html (10,129 bytes)
16. RE: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:19:34 -0700; With jumbo frames, a single receiver can handle 10GbE line rate. With 1500 mtu, a single receiver becomes a bottleneck. I will forward the numbers later today.; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00910.html (10,798 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:30:27 -0700; FYI, looks like the code in the nine patches is not responsible for the performance drop; the problem is elsewhere in the Super TSO code. David, I have applied all 9 patches (6-9 are done by editing; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00916.html (9,389 bytes)
18. RE: [PATCH 0/9]: TCP: The Road to Super TSO (score: 1): Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:55:13 -0700; Some of the original data that we got couple weeks ago are attached. On questions from Herbert and others: - The performance drop from the "super-TSO" with TSO OFF is marginal, with TSO ON is quite n; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00917.html (17,126 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]