| To: | Troy Wilson <tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:59:47 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <200209051830.g85IUMdH096254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hey, thanks for crossposting to netdev So if i understood correctly (looking at the intel site) the main value add of this feature is probably in having the CPU avoid reassembling and retransmitting. I am willing to bet that the real value in your results is in saving on retransmits; I would think shoving the data down the NIC and avoid the fragmentation shouldnt give you that much significant CPU savings. Do you have any stats from the hardware that could show retransmits etc; have you tested this with zero copy as well (sendfile) again, if i am right you shouldnt see much benefit from that either? I would think it probably works well with things like partial ACKs too? (I am almost sure it does or someone needs to be spanked, so just checking). cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Feldman, Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Troy Wilson |
| Previous by Thread: | Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Troy Wilson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Troy Wilson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |