From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Matt Carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tg3: Bugfixes and updates Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:25:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20101001172545.GA17223@mcarlson.broadcom.com> References: <1285878877-12148-1-git-send-email-mcarlson@broadcom.com> <20101001.002628.267960834.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Matthew Carlson" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "andy@greyhouse.net" To: "David Miller" Return-path: Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:2554 "EHLO MMS3.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751525Ab0JARcM (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:32:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101001.002628.267960834.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 12:26:28AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: "Matt Carlson" > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:34:29 -0700 > > > This patchset implements some bugfixes, removes the 5724 device > > ID and introduces extended rx buffer rings. > > All applied.... > > But really, I want to hear some real justification for a 2048 entry RX > ring at gigabit speeds. I even think 512 is way too large for gigabit > parts. I don't have any personal experience where a larger ring size could benefit. However, I have heard of situations in the past where people have said increasing the amount of rx buffers available has smoothed over some bursty traffic / cpu usage patterns. These people really did want more than 512 rx buffers. > Any machine that gets one of these newer 5717 parts does not need that > much queueing, and too deep queues tend to hurt locality and thus > performance. Good point. I'll see if we can scale the BD ring size based on the number of rx buffers the administrator has configured.