netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Banks <gnb@sgi.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: mchan@broadcom.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUG in tg3_tx
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:47:33 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040526234732.GA5958@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040526110121.657f2d42.davem@redhat.com>

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:01:21AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 02:04:43 +1000
> Greg Banks <gnb@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > [...] is there a good reason why the tg3 driver uses
> > the on-chip SRAM send ring by default instead of the host send
> > ring?[...]
> 
> It actually results in better performance to use PIOs to the
> chip to write the TXD descriptors.  You may be skeptical about
> this but it cannot be denied that it does result in lower
> latency as we don't have to wait for the chip to do it's next
> prefetch and _furthermore_ this means that no CPU cache lines
> will bounce from cpu-->device in order to get the descriptors
> to the chip.

Actually I am skeptical.  I suspect the performance difference
is dependent on chipset and load.

In the case I'm looking at (multiple NIC NFS read loads) there would be
7 to 10 32-bit PIOs emitted per call to tg3_start_xmit.  With 3 NICs'
worth of near line-rate traffic going through one chipset, that's a
lot of PIOs.  The scaling work we're doing will require 2 to 3 times
more traffic than this.  For this kind of load the latency cost may
be worth the efficiency gain for the chipset.

If we can show a performance improvement on our hardware, would you
accept a patch to enable host send rings on our hardware only?

Greg.
-- 
Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
I don't speak for SGI.

  reply	other threads:[~2004-05-26 23:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-05-25 20:04 [PATCH] fix BUG in tg3_tx Michael Chan
2004-05-26  0:54 ` Greg Banks
2004-05-26 16:04 ` Greg Banks
2004-05-26 18:01   ` David S. Miller
2004-05-26 23:47     ` Greg Banks [this message]
2004-05-26 23:52       ` David S. Miller
2004-05-27  0:12         ` Greg Banks
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-05-26 17:43 Michael Chan
2004-05-26 18:47 ` David S. Miller
2004-05-26 23:52   ` Greg Banks
2004-05-26 23:50 ` Greg Banks
2004-05-26  1:22 Michael Chan
2004-05-24 17:33 Michael Chan
2004-05-24 17:26 Michael Chan
2004-05-24  7:26 Greg Banks
2004-05-24  7:40 ` David S. Miller
2004-05-24  8:04   ` Greg Banks
2004-05-24 17:06     ` David S. Miller
2004-05-25  1:04       ` Greg Banks
2004-05-25 17:51         ` David S. Miller
2004-05-26  0:12           ` Greg Banks
2004-05-25 17:52         ` David S. Miller

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=20040526234732.GA5958@sgi.com \
    --to=gnb@sgi.com \
    --cc=davem@redhat.com \
    --cc=mchan@broadcom.com \
    --cc=netdev@oss.sgi.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).