From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] qlge: Increase default TX/RX ring size to 1024. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090611.022713.35602614.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1244684975-10211-1-git-send-email-ron.mercer@qlogic.com> <1244684975-10211-3-git-send-email-ron.mercer@qlogic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: ron.mercer@qlogic.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:51668 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755532AbZFKJ1L (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:27:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1244684975-10211-3-git-send-email-ron.mercer@qlogic.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Ron Mercer Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:49:35 -0700 > > Signed-off-by: Ron Mercer This is huge. Even other aggressive NICs such as BNX2X only use 256 ring entries per TX queue. There is a point where increasing definitely hurts, because you're increasing the resident set size of the cpu, as more and more SKBs are effectively "in flight" at a given time and only due to the amount you're allowing to get queued up into the chip. And with multiqueue, per-queue TX queue sizes should matter less at least to some extent. Are you sure that jacking the value up this high has no negative side effects for various workloads?