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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).