From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
To: Jan Ceuleers <jan.ceuleers@computer.org>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Default offload settings in Ethernet drivers
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:29:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1229023768.3006.37.camel@achroite> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081211105459.3e615be8@s6510>
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 10:54 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:41:31 +0100
> Jan Ceuleers <jan.ceuleers@computer.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > A discussion recently took place on the power mailing list on the
> > subject of the impact of (hardware-assisted) offload functions on the
> > power efficiency of the overall system.
> >
> > The discussion was brought on by me noticing that not all drivers enable
> > all of their offload features by default (case in point: r8169).
> >
> > Although the discussion may not be complete, early indications are that:
> >
> > 1. Hardware-assisted offloads improve power efficiency unless
> > implemented in a separate CPU (TOE / Total Offloading);
> >
> > 2. It would probably be a good idea to enable hardware-assisted offloads
> > other than TOE by default given the above.
> >
> > I would therefore like to sollicit views here:
> >
> > 1. Would changing default offload settings in Ethernet drivers help to
> > save the planet?
> >
> > 2. Which offload settings does it make sense to enable by default?
>
> Go get a kill-a-watt meter and real hardware and measure.
[...]
Even then, the results will be highly dependent on the CPU's power-
saving capabilities and on settings that affect the pattern of IRQs like
interrupt moderation and number of queues used by multiqueue-capable
drivers, not just on the offload settings. I would expect checksum
generation/validation and segmentation in an ASIC to take less power
than in a CPU, but on an already-busy CPU this might not be the case.
Power usage also depends on throughput, of course. If the test involves
pushing data as fast as possible rather than simulating a specific
workload then offload features may well probably increase throughput
without reducing power consumption. So maybe the metric should be
power/throughput... but there is unlikely to be a linear relationship
between the two, so a single figure for this may be misleading.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-11 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-11 18:41 Default offload settings in Ethernet drivers Jan Ceuleers
2008-12-11 18:54 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-12-11 19:10 ` Rick Jones
2008-12-11 19:29 ` Ben Hutchings [this message]
2008-12-11 19:30 ` Jan Ceuleers
2008-12-11 19:52 ` Ben Hutchings
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1229023768.3006.37.camel@achroite \
--to=bhutchings@solarflare.com \
--cc=jan.ceuleers@computer.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.