From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nivedita Singhvi Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:48:35 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1031266115.3d77df4344463@imap.linux.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Troy Wilson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: jamal In-Reply-To: Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Quoting jamal : > So if i understood correctly (looking at the intel site) the main > value add of this feature is probably in having the CPU avoid > reassembling and retransmitting. I am willing to bet that the real Er, even just assembling and transmitting? I'm thinking of the reduction in things like separate memory allocation calls and looking up the route, etc..?? > value in your results is in saving on retransmits; I would think > shoving the data down the NIC and avoid the fragmentation shouldnt > give you that much significant CPU savings. Do you have any stats Why do say that? Wouldnt the fact that youre now reducing the number of calls down the stack by a significant number provide a significant saving? > from the hardware that could show retransmits etc; have you tested > this with zero copy as well (sendfile) again, if i am right you > shouldnt see much benefit from that either? thanks, Nivedita