From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: "Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@intel.com>
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
jdmason@us.ibm.com, shemminger@osdl.org, hadi@cyberus.ca,
"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@intel.com>,
netdev@oss.sgi.com, "Venkatesan,
Ganesh" <ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:33:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42A0A25C.8000503@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0450BFE8@orsmsx408>
Ronciak, John wrote:
>> It's not obvious that weight is to blame for frames dropped. I would
>> look into RX ring size in relation to HW mitigation.
>> And of course if you system is very loaded the RX softirq gives room
>> for other jobs and frames get dropped
>>
>
> With the same system (fairly high end with nothing major running on it)
> we got rid of the dropped frames by just reducing the weight for 64. So
> the weight did have something to do with the dropped frames. Maybe
> other factors as well, but in static tests like this it sure looks like
> the 64 value is wrong is some cases.
Is this implying that having the NAPI poll do less work per poll
of the driver actually increases performance? I would have guessed that
the opposite would be true.
Maybe the poll is disabling the IRQs on the NIC for too long, or something
like that?
For e1000, are you using larger than the default 256 receive descriptors?
I have seen that increasing these descriptors helps decrease drops by
a small percentage.
Have you tried increasing the netdev-backlog setting to see if that
fixes the problem (while leaving the weight at the default)?
What packet sizes and speeds are you using for your tests?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-03 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 121+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-03 18:19 RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch Ronciak, John
2005-06-03 18:33 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2005-06-03 18:49 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 18:59 ` Ben Greear
2005-06-03 19:02 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 20:17 ` Robert Olsson
2005-06-03 20:30 ` David S. Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-06-07 16:23 Ronciak, John
2005-06-07 20:21 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-08 2:20 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2005-06-08 3:31 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-08 3:43 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-08 13:36 ` jamal
2005-06-09 21:37 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2005-06-09 22:05 ` Stephen Hemminger
2005-06-09 22:12 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2005-06-09 22:21 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-09 22:21 ` jamal
2005-06-09 22:22 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-09 22:20 ` jamal
2005-06-06 20:29 Ronciak, John
2005-06-06 23:55 ` Mitch Williams
2005-06-07 0:08 ` Ben Greear
2005-06-08 1:50 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2005-06-07 4:53 ` Stephen Hemminger
2005-06-07 12:38 ` jamal
2005-06-07 12:06 ` Martin Josefsson
2005-06-07 13:29 ` jamal
2005-06-07 12:36 ` Martin Josefsson
2005-06-07 16:34 ` Robert Olsson
2005-06-07 23:19 ` Rick Jones
2005-06-21 20:37 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-22 7:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-06-22 8:42 ` P
2005-06-22 19:37 ` jamal
2005-06-23 8:56 ` P
2005-06-21 20:20 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-21 20:38 ` Rick Jones
2005-06-21 20:55 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-21 21:47 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-21 22:22 ` Donald Becker
2005-06-21 22:34 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-22 0:08 ` Donald Becker
2005-06-22 4:44 ` Chris Friesen
2005-06-22 11:31 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-22 16:23 ` Leonid Grossman
2005-06-22 16:37 ` jamal
2005-06-22 18:00 ` Leonid Grossman
2005-06-22 18:06 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-22 20:22 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-22 20:35 ` Rick Jones
2005-06-22 20:43 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-22 21:10 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-22 21:16 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-22 21:53 ` Chris Friesen
2005-06-22 22:11 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-22 21:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-06-22 22:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-06-22 22:30 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-22 22:23 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-23 12:14 ` jamal
2005-06-23 17:36 ` David Mosberger
2005-06-22 22:42 ` Leonid Grossman
2005-06-22 23:13 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-22 23:19 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-22 23:23 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-22 17:05 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-06 15:35 Ronciak, John
2005-06-06 19:47 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 17:40 Ronciak, John
2005-06-03 18:08 ` Robert Olsson
2005-06-03 0:11 Ronciak, John
2005-06-03 0:18 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 2:32 ` jamal
2005-06-03 17:43 ` Mitch Williams
2005-06-03 18:38 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 18:42 ` jamal
2005-06-03 19:01 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 19:28 ` Mitch Williams
2005-06-03 19:59 ` jamal
2005-06-03 20:31 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 21:12 ` Jon Mason
2005-06-03 20:22 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 20:29 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 19:49 ` Michael Chan
2005-06-03 20:59 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2005-06-03 20:35 ` Michael Chan
2005-06-03 22:29 ` jamal
2005-06-04 0:25 ` Michael Chan
2005-06-05 21:36 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-06 6:43 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 23:26 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2005-06-05 20:11 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-03 21:07 ` Edgar E Iglesias
2005-06-03 23:30 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2005-06-03 20:30 ` Ben Greear
2005-06-03 19:40 ` jamal
2005-06-03 20:23 ` jamal
2005-06-03 20:28 ` Mitch Williams
2005-06-02 21:19 Ronciak, John
2005-06-02 21:31 ` Stephen Hemminger
2005-06-02 21:40 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-02 21:51 ` Jon Mason
2005-06-02 22:12 ` David S. Miller
2005-06-02 22:19 ` Jon Mason
2005-06-02 22:15 ` Robert Olsson
2005-05-26 21:36 Mitch Williams
2005-05-27 8:21 ` Robert Olsson
2005-05-27 11:18 ` jamal
2005-05-27 15:50 ` Stephen Hemminger
2005-05-27 20:27 ` Mitch Williams
2005-05-27 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2005-05-28 0:56 ` jamal
2005-05-31 17:35 ` Mitch Williams
2005-05-31 17:40 ` Stephen Hemminger
2005-05-31 17:43 ` Mitch Williams
2005-05-31 22:07 ` Jon Mason
2005-05-31 22:14 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-31 23:28 ` Jon Mason
2005-06-02 12:26 ` jamal
2005-06-02 17:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
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=42A0A25C.8000503@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=jdmason@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=john.ronciak@intel.com \
--cc=mitch.a.williams@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
/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).