| To: | jheffner@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 19:28:29 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <46332e5aa197db91aaf012cf140282b4@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050504230731.12be1bc3.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <46332e5aa197db91aaf012cf140282b4@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:26:09 -0400 > Though it may be moot by now, I just ran some tests of my own with this > patch. This was on a dual 2.4 GHz Xeon booted with a UP kernel, > running iperf over an e1000 at a 1500 byte MTU. I measured idle CPU by > running a process which sits in a gettimeofday() loop. Numbers are CPU > utilization, all turned out +/- 1%. > > No TSO: 86.6% > Old TSO: 61.0% > New TSO: 88.5% Yeah, TSO Reloaded really stinks. :-) Try the "Super TSO" patch I just posted instead. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded, John Heffner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded, John Heffner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded, John Heffner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded, John Heffner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |