From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 08:38:30 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3D78CBF6.10609@us.ibm.com> References: <20020905.235159.128049953.davem@redhat.com> <46202575.1031297360@[10.10.2.3]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , hadi@cyberus.ca, tcw@tempest.prismnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com Return-path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>Stupid question, are you sure you have CONFIG_E1000_NAPI enabled? >> >>NAPI is also not the panacea to all problems in the world. > > No, but I didn't expect throughput to drop by 40% or so either, > which is (very roughly) what happened. Interrupts are a pain to > manage and do affinity with, so NAPI should (at least in theory) > be better for this kind of setup ... I think. No, no. Bad Martin! Throughput didn't drop, "Specweb compliance" dropped. Those are two very, very different things. I've found that the server can produce a lot more throughput, although it doesn't have the characteristics that Specweb considers compliant. Just have Troy enable mod-status and look at the throughput that Apache tells you that it is giving during a run. _That_ is real throughput, not number of compliant connections. _And_ NAPI is for receive only, right? Also, my compliance drop occurs with the NAPI checkbox disabled. There is something else in the new driver that causes our problems. -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com