netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Cc: Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	openib-general@openib.org, rolandd@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:29:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061011142957.5bd42784@freekitty> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061011212339.GH15468@mellanox.co.il>

O
> > 
> > You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
> > to see if there is a performance gain.  It wouldn't be hard to test
> > a modified version and validate the performance change.
> 
> Yes. With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.
> 
> > You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
> > to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.
> 
> I can. But as network algorithmics says (chapter 5)
> "Since such bus reads are expensive, the CPU might as well piggyback
> the checksum computation with the copy process".
> 
> It speaks about onboard the adapter buffers, but memory bus reads are also much slower
> than CPU nowdays.  So I think even if this works well in benchmark in real life
> single copy should better.
> 

The other alternative might be to make copy/checksum code smarter about using
fragments rather than allocating a large buffer. It should avoid second order
allocations (effective size > PAGESIZE).

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2006-10-11 21:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-09 17:47 Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-09 16:50 ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-10-10 14:43   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-10 17:43     ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-10-11  0:13       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11  0:15         ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-11  0:26           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11  3:33             ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-11  3:36               ` David Miller
2006-10-11  3:42                 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-11  3:45                   ` David Miller
2006-10-11  3:49                     ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-11  3:50                       ` David Miller
2006-10-11  2:15         ` David Miller
2006-10-11  9:05           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11  9:09             ` Steven Whitehouse
2006-10-11 15:01               ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11 20:11                 ` Steven Whitehouse
2006-10-11 20:52                   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11 20:57                   ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-10-11 21:23                     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11 21:29                       ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2006-10-11 21:42                         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11 21:41                       ` David Miller
2006-10-12 19:12                         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-13  4:22                           ` David Miller
2006-10-13  6:17                             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11 20:52                 ` David Miller
2006-10-11 21:11                   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11  9:20             ` David Miller
2006-10-11  9:46               ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2006-10-11 18:21                 ` [openib-general] " Michael Krause
2006-10-11 13:11               ` [RFC] Question about potential problem in net/ipv4/route.c Eric Dumazet
2006-10-12  5:05                 ` David Miller
2006-10-12  5:31                   ` Patrick McHardy
2006-10-12  5:54                     ` David Miller
2006-10-12  5:48                   ` Eric Dumazet
2006-10-12  6:02                     ` David Miller
2006-10-12  6:10                       ` Patrick McHardy
2006-10-12  6:25                         ` David Miller
2006-10-12  6:35                       ` Eric Dumazet
2006-10-12  7:48                         ` David Miller
2006-10-16  9:00                 ` [PATCH] NET : Suspicious locking in reqsk_queue_hash_req() Eric Dumazet
2006-10-16  9:07                   ` Eric Dumazet
2006-10-16 16:16                     ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2006-10-16 16:56                       ` Eric Dumazet
2006-10-16 17:39                         ` Eric Dumazet
2006-10-16 20:41                   ` David 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=20061011142957.5bd42784@freekitty \
    --to=shemminger@osdl.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mst@mellanox.co.il \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=openib-general@openib.org \
    --cc=rolandd@cisco.com \
    --cc=steve@chygwyn.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).