Re: [patch] e1000 TSO parameter

["David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:01:55 -0700
David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:22 -0700, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> said:
> 
>   DaveM> But I don't think that's what is happening here, rather the
>   DaveM> PCI controller is "talking" to the CPU's L2 cache with
>   DaveM> coherency transactions on all the data of every packet going
>   DaveM> to the chip.
> 
> That's true.  But shouldn't it be true for both the TSO and non-TSO
> case?

The transfers are each longer in the TSO case, so need more
to transfer more data from the bus just to get _one_ of
the sub-packets of the large TSO frame out.  It thus makes it
more likely they'll be a delay.

>   DaveM> I know how this can be fixed, can you use L2-bypassing stores
>   DaveM> in your csum_and_copy_from_user() and copy_from_user()
>   DaveM> implementations like we do on sparc64?  That would exactly
>   DaveM> eliminate this situation where the card is talking to the
>   DaveM> cpu's L2 cache for all the data during the PCI DMA transation
>   DaveM> on the send side.
> 
> We could, but would it always be a win?  Especially for
> copy_from_user().  Most of the time, that data remains cached, so I
> don't think we'd want to use non-temporal stores on those (in
> general).  csum_and_copy_from_user() isn't well optimized yet.  Let's
> see if I can find a volunteer... ;-)

No, I mean "bypass L2 cache on miss" for stores.  Don't
tell me IA64 doesn't have that? 8) I certainly didn't mean
"always bypass L2 cache" for stores :-)