From: P@draigBrady.com
To: mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se>,
e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Jorge Manuel Finochietto <jorge.finochietto@polito.it>,
Giulio Galante <galante@polito.it>,
netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:57:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41A76085.7000105@draigBrady.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1101484740.24742.213.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it>
I forgot a smilely on my previous post
about not beleiving you. So here's 2: :-) :-)
Comments below:
Marco Mellia wrote:
> Robert,
> It a pleasure to hear from you.
>
>> Touching the packet-data givs a major impact. See eth_type_trans
>> in all profiles.
Notice the e1000 sets up the alignment for IP by default.
> skb are de/allocated using standard kernel memory management. Still,
> without touching the packet, we can receive 100% of them.
I was doing some playing in this area this week.
I changed the alloc per packet to a "realloc" per packet.
I.E. the e1000 driver owns the packets. I noticed a
very nice speedup from this. In summary a userspace
app was able to receive 2x250Kpps without this patch,
and 2x490Kpps with it. The patch is here:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/tmp/linux-2.4.20-pb.diff
Note 99% of that patch is just upgrading from
e1000 V4.4.12-k1 to V5.2.52 (which doesn't affect
the performance).
Wow I just read you're excellent paper, and noticed
you used this approach also :-)
>> Small packet performance is dependent on low latency. Higher bus speed
>> gives shorter latency but also on higher speed buses there use to be
>> bridges that adds latency.
>
> That's true. We suspect that the limit is due to bus latency. But still,
> we are surprised, since the bus allows to receive 100%, but to transmit
> up to ~50%. Moreover the raw aggerate bandwidth of the buffer is _far_
> larger (133MHz*64bit ~ 8gbit/s
Well there definitely could be an asymmetry wrt bus latency.
Saying that though, in my tests with much the same hardware
as you, I could only get 800Kpps into the driver. I'll
check this again when I have time. Note also that as I understand
it the PCI control bus is running at a much lower rate,
and that is used to arbitrate the bus for each packet.
I.E. the 8Gb/s number above is not the bottleneck.
An lspci -vvv for your ethernet devices would be useful
Also to view the burst size: setpci -d 8086:1010 e6.b
(where 8086:1010 is the ethernet device PCI id).
cheers,
Pádraig.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-26 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1101467291.24742.70.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it>
2004-11-26 14:05 ` [E1000-devel] Transmission limit P
2004-11-26 15:31 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 19:56 ` jamal
2004-11-29 14:21 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-30 13:46 ` jamal
2004-12-02 17:24 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 20:06 ` jamal
2004-11-26 20:56 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-26 21:02 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-27 9:25 ` Harald Welte
[not found] ` <20041127111101.GC23139@xi.wantstofly.org>
2004-11-27 11:31 ` Harald Welte
2004-11-27 20:12 ` Cesar Marcondes
2004-11-29 8:53 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 14:50 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-30 8:42 ` Marco Mellia
2004-12-01 12:25 ` jamal
2004-12-02 13:39 ` Marco Mellia
2004-12-03 13:07 ` jamal
2004-11-26 15:40 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-26 15:59 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 16:57 ` P [this message]
2004-11-26 20:01 ` jamal
2004-11-29 10:19 ` P
2004-11-29 13:09 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-29 20:16 ` David S. Miller
2004-12-01 16:47 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-30 13:31 ` jamal
2004-11-30 13:46 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-30 14:25 ` jamal
2004-12-01 0:11 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 1:09 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-01 15:34 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-01 16:49 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-01 17:37 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 17:54 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 18:23 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 23:25 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-03 5:23 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-10 16:24 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-01 18:29 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 21:35 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-02 6:13 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-03 13:24 ` jamal
2004-12-05 14:50 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit) Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:03 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 15:15 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:19 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 15:30 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:00 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:11 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:38 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 18:14 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:42 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 16:48 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:01 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:58 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:44 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:51 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:54 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-06 11:32 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: " jamal
2004-12-06 12:11 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 12:20 ` jamal
2004-12-06 12:23 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 12:30 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-06 13:11 ` jamal
[not found] ` <20041206132907.GA13411@xi.wantstofly.org>
[not found] ` <16820.37049.396306.295878@robur.slu.se>
2004-12-06 17:32 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] " P
2004-12-08 23:36 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
[not found] ` <41B825A5.2000009@draigBrady.com>
[not found] ` <20041209161825.GA32454@mail.com>
2004-12-09 17:12 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 P
[not found] ` <20041209164820.GB32454@mail.com>
2004-12-09 17:19 ` P
2004-12-09 23:25 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
2004-12-05 21:12 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit) Scott Feldman
2004-12-05 21:25 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 1:23 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: " Scott Feldman
2004-12-02 17:31 ` [E1000-devel] Transmission limit Marco Mellia
2004-12-03 20:57 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-04 10:36 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 12:08 ` jamal
2004-12-01 15:24 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-26 17:58 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-27 20:00 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 12:44 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 15:19 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 17:32 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 19:08 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 19:09 ` Lennert Buytenhek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41A76085.7000105@draigBrady.com \
--to=p@draigbrady.com \
--cc=Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se \
--cc=e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=galante@polito.it \
--cc=jorge.finochietto@polito.it \
--cc=mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).