| To: | haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:36:52 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3D78F4E6.3020101@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3D78E7A5.7050306@xxxxxxxxxx> <20020906202646.A2185@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3D78F4E6.3020101@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:33:10 -0700 Actually, oprofile separated out the acenic module from the rest of the kernel. I should have included that breakout as well. but it was only 1.3 of CPU: 1.3801 0.0000 /lib/modules/2.4.18+O1/kernel/drivers/net/acenic.o We thought you were using e1000 in these tests? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Dave Hansen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Martin J. Bligh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |