From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] mlx4_en: TX ring size default to 1024 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:14:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20120224.151415.831305774793653355.davem@davemloft.net> References: <4F46404D.10509@mellanox.co.il> <20120223.144541.1354349294973443529.davem@davemloft.net> <953B660C027164448AE903364AC447D2618B8768@MTLDAG02.mtl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: yevgenyp@mellanox.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:39625 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757840Ab2BXUOV (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:14:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <953B660C027164448AE903364AC447D2618B8768@MTLDAG02.mtl.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Yevgeny Petrilin Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:35:45 +0000 > On the other hand, when having smaller queue with 1000 in-flight > packets would mean queue would be stopped, how is it better? It's a thousand times better. Because if a high priority packet gets queued up it won't have to wait for 1024 packets to hit the wire before it can go out. You need to support byte queue limits before you jack things up so high like this, otherwise high priority packets are absolutely pointless and unusable.