On Tue, 2005-06-12 at 23:33 -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 06:08:35PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> > All load goes onto CPU#0. I didnt try to tune or balance anything > > so the numbers could be better than those noted here > > ok - that's fair. I suspect the hyperthreading case is one where > binding the IRQs to particule "CPUs" is necessary to reproduce > the results. > Note: I didnt bind anything. The p4/xeon starts with routing everything to CPU#0 - i just left it like that. I am taking it this is what you were asking for earlier? > > All tests send exactly 10M packets burst at wire rate (1.488 MPps) on > > each interface. > > 4 runs are made; pick the last 3 of 4. > > > > Results: > > -------- > > > > kernel 2.6.11.7: 446Kpps > > kernel 2.6.14: 452kpps > > kernel 2.6.14 with e1000-6.2.15: 470Kpps > > Kernel 2.6.14 with e1000-6.2.15 but rx copybreak commented out: 460Kpps > > > > conclusion: > > ----------- > > > > One could draw the conclusion that copybreak is good or prefetch is bad. > > Like Robert, I conclude that both helped in this case. > eh? Are we looking at the same results? Robert's conclusion: copybreak _bad_, _some_ prefetch good. Mine so far is inconclusive although one could almost say copybreak good - which is the opposite of what Robert concluded. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
