| To: | Martin.Bligh@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 11:43:36 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <61557945.1031312716@[10.10.2.3]> |
| References: | <20020906.113652.40767574.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <61557945.1031312716@[10.10.2.3]> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:45:17 -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? e1000 on the server, those profiles were client side. Ok. BTW acenic is packet rate limited by the speed of the MIPS cpus on the card. It might be instramental to disable HW checksumming in the acenic driver and see what this does to your results. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Martin J. Bligh |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Martin J. Bligh |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |