From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eugene Surovegin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:48:22 -0800 Message-ID: <20080111174822.GB17240@gate.ebshome.net> References: <1199526609-12290-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de> <1199528388.7291.55.camel@pasglop> <200801051338.17957.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Roese Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801051338.17957.sr@denx.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > > Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the > > > performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default > > > values to match this setup. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese > > > --- > > > > Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ? > > I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have any > numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256 buffers. This cannot be true for all chips. Default numbers I selected weren't random. In particular, 256 for Tx doesn't make a lot of sense for 405. You just gonna waste memory. I'd be quite reluctant to follow such advices from AMCC without actual details. -- Eugene