From: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@zip.com.au, Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com, hadi@cyberus.ca,
tcw@tempest.prismnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@oss.sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com, Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se
Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:44:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15736.38178.445310.714015@robur.slu.se> (raw)
David S. Miller writes:
> Mala did some testing on this a couple of weeks back. It appears that
> NAPI damaged performance significantly.
>
> http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linuxperf/netperf/results/july_02/netperf2.5.25results.htm
>
> Robert can comment on optimal settings
Hopefully yes...
I see other numbers so we have to sort out the differences. Andrew Morton
pinged me about this test last week. So I've had a chance to run some tests.
Some comments:
Scale to CPU can be dangerous measure w. NAPI due to its adapting behaviour
where RX interrupts decreases in favour of successive polls.
And NAPI scheme behaves different since we can not assume that all network
traffic is well-behaved like TCP. System has to be manageable and to "perform"
under any network load not only for well-behaved TCP. So of course we will
see some differences -- there are no free lunch. Simply we can not blindly
look at one test. IMO NAPI is the best overall performer. The number speaks
for themselves.
Here is the most recent test...
NAPI kernel path is included in 2.4.20-pre4 the comparison below is mainly
between e1000 driver w and w/o NAPI and the NAPI port to e1000 is still
evolving.
Linux 2.4.20-pre4/UP PIII @ 933 MHz w. Intel's e100 2 port GIGE adapter.
e1000 4.3.2-k1 (current kernel version) and current NAPI patch. For NAPI
e1000 driver uses RxIntDelay=1. RxIntDewlay=0 caused problem. Non-NAPI
driver RxIntDelay=64. (default)
Three tests: TCP, UDP, packet forwarding.
Netperf. TCP socket size 131070, Single TCP stream. Test length 30 s.
M-size e1000 NAPI-e1000
============================
4 20.74 20.69 Mbit/s data received.
128 458.14 465.26
512 836.40 846.71
1024 936.11 937.93
2048 940.65 939.92
4096 940.86 937.59
8192 940.87 939.95
16384 940.88 937.61
32768 940.89 939.92
65536 940.90 939.48
131070 940.84 939.74
Netperf. UDP_STREAM. 1440 pkts. Single UDP stream. Test length 30 s.
e1000 NAPI-e1000
====================================
955.7 955.7 Mbit/s data received.
Forwarding test. 1 Mpkts at 970 kpps injected.
e1000 NAPI-e1000
=============================================
T-put 305 298580 pkts routed.
NOTE!
With non-NAPI driver this system is "dead" an performes nothing.
Cheers.
--ro
next reply other threads:[~2002-09-06 11:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 101+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-06 11:44 Robert Olsson [this message]
2002-09-06 14:37 ` Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 15:38 ` Robert Olsson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-10 14:59 Mala Anand
2002-09-06 18:35 Manfred Spraul
2002-09-06 18:38 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 19:40 ` Manfred Spraul
2002-09-06 19:34 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-10 12:02 ` Robert Olsson
2002-09-10 16:55 ` Manfred Spraul
2002-09-11 7:46 ` Robert Olsson
2002-09-05 20:47 Feldman, Scott
2002-09-05 18:30 Troy Wilson
2002-09-05 20:59 ` jamal
2002-09-05 22:11 ` Troy Wilson
2002-09-05 22:39 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-05 23:01 ` Dave Hansen
2002-09-05 22:48 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-06 1:47 ` jamal
2002-09-06 3:38 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-06 3:58 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 4:20 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-06 4:17 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-07 0:05 ` Troy Wilson
2002-09-06 3:56 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 3:47 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 6:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 6:51 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 7:36 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-06 7:22 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 9:54 ` jamal
2002-09-06 14:29 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 15:38 ` Dave Hansen
2002-09-06 16:11 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 16:21 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-06 15:29 ` Dave Hansen
2002-09-06 16:29 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 17:36 ` Dave Hansen
2002-09-06 18:26 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-06 18:33 ` Dave Hansen
2002-09-06 18:36 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 18:45 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 18:43 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 19:19 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-06 19:21 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 19:45 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-06 19:26 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-06 19:24 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 19:45 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 17:26 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2002-09-06 17:37 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 18:19 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2002-09-06 18:26 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 18:36 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 18:51 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-06 18:48 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 19:05 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2002-09-06 19:01 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 20:29 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-06 18:34 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 18:57 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2002-09-06 18:58 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 19:52 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2002-09-06 19:49 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-06 20:03 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2002-09-06 23:48 ` Troy Wilson
2002-09-11 9:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-09-11 14:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-11 15:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-09-11 15:15 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-11 15:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-09-11 15:27 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-12 7:28 ` Todd Underwood
2002-09-12 12:30 ` jamal
2002-09-12 13:57 ` Todd Underwood
2002-09-12 14:11 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-12 14:41 ` todd-lkml
2002-09-12 23:12 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-13 21:59 ` todd-lkml
2002-09-13 22:04 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-15 20:16 ` jamal
2002-09-16 4:23 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 14:16 ` todd-lkml
2002-09-16 19:52 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 21:32 ` todd-lkml
2002-09-16 21:29 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 22:53 ` David Woodhouse
2002-09-16 22:46 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 23:03 ` David Woodhouse
2002-09-16 23:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-09-16 23:02 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 23:48 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-09-16 23:43 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 0:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-09-17 10:31 ` jamal
2002-09-13 22:12 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-12 17:18 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-06 23:56 ` Troy Wilson
2002-09-06 23:52 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-07 0:18 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2002-09-07 0:27 ` Troy Wilson
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=15736.38178.445310.714015@robur.slu.se \
--to=robert.olsson@data.slu.se \
--cc=Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=tcw@tempest.prismnet.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).