From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tg3: Bugfixes and updates Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20101001.002628.267960834.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1285878877-12148-1-git-send-email-mcarlson@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, andy@greyhouse.net To: mcarlson@broadcom.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:39454 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751799Ab0JAH0H (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:26:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1285878877-12148-1-git-send-email-mcarlson@broadcom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "Matt Carlson" Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:34:29 -0700 > This patchset implements some bugfixes, removes the 5724 device > ID and introduces extended rx buffer rings. All applied.... But really, I want to hear some real justification for a 2048 entry RX ring at gigabit speeds. I even think 512 is way too large for gigabit parts. Any machine that gets one of these newer 5717 parts does not need that much queueing, and too deep queues tend to hurt locality and thus performance.