From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [WIP][PATCHES] Network xmit batching Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:43:28 -0400 Message-ID: <1181303008.4063.47.camel@localhost> References: Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , Gagan Arneja , Evgeniy Polyakov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Rick Jones , Robert Olsson , Sridhar Samudrala To: Krishna Kumar2 Return-path: Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.224]:2263 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965713AbXFHLnc (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:43:32 -0400 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t15so704573wxc for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:43:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org KK, On Fri, 2007-08-06 at 17:01 +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > I thought it comes to 1.147Mpps, or did I calculate wrong > (70*1024*1024/8/8) ? I assumed 8B to mean data that is on top of TCP/UDP? If so then in the case of UDP we have 8B UDP header, 20B IP and 14B ethernet < 64B minimal allowed Ethernet packet; so it gets padded and goes out as 64B. There are, as you state above, 1.147(or is it 1.48?) such packets/sec in 1Gbps. So (70Mbps/1000Mbps)*1.147 is the rough number i was reffering to. > My script was doing that earlier, I trimmed all that to make it easier > to understand. Will post the larger version later. That will be nice because remember we can have multiple CPU packet producers but only one CPU consumer. > > no problem. > > Thanks, please let me know what you think of the patch I sent earlier. I havent seen a patch. Can you resend it? > I am running a larger 5 iteration run with buffer sizes :8,32,128,512,1 > K,4K,16K. > It is going to run for around 12 hours and since I am moving house during > the > weekend, I will be able to look at the results only on Monday. > sounds good. cheers, jamal