Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices?
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: 2010-01-29 11:34:01
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2010-01-29 · Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices? · Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
- 2010-01-27 · Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices? · Krishna Kumar2 <hidden>
- 2010-01-19 · Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices? · Rick Jones <hidden>
- 2010-01-16 · Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices? · Krishna Kumar2 <hidden>
- 2010-01-15 · Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices? · Rick Jones <hidden>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 04:45:01PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Same 5 runs of single netperf's:
0. Driver unsets F_SG but sets F_GSO:
Org (16K): BW: 18180.71 SD: 13.485
New (16K): BW: 18113.15 SD: 13.551
Org (64K): BW: 21980.28 SD: 10.306
New (64K): BW: 21386.59 SD: 10.447
1. Driver unsets F_SG, and with GSO off
Org (16K): BW: 10894.62 SD: 26.591
New (16K): BW: 7262.10 SD: 35.340
Org (64K): BW: 12396.41 SD: 23.357
New (64K): BW: 7853.02 SD: 32.405
2. Driver unsets F_SG and uses ethtool to set GSO:
Org (16K): BW: 18094.11 SD: 13.603
New (16K): BW: 17952.38 SD: 13.743
Org (64K): BW: 21540.78 SD: 10.771
New (64K): BW: 21818.35 SD: 10.598Hmm, any idea what is causing case 0 to be different from case 2? In particular, the 64K performance in case 0 appears to be a regression but in case 2 it's showing up as an improvement. AFAICS these two cases should produce identical results, or is this just jitter across tests? Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} [off-list ref] Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt