From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ronciak, John" Subject: RE: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:23:32 -0700 Message-ID: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0450C01F@orsmsx408> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Williams, Mitch A" , "David S. Miller" , , , , , , "Venkatesan, Ganesh" , "Brandeburg, Jesse" Return-path: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message To: , "Stephen Hemminger" Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org >> > To the intel folks: shouldnt someone be investigating why this is so? This is why we started all of this. We have data that is showing this issue where our over all performance is best in class and yet we can make it better by changing things like the weight value. There also seems to be some misconceptions about changing the weight value. It actually improves the performance of other drivers as well. Not as much as it improves the e1000 performance but it does seem to help others as well. We (Intel) have to be careful talking about competitors performance so we just refer to them as competitors in these threads. So it is not just e1000 who benefits from the lower weight values. One thing it is doing for e1000 right now is that it is stopping the e1000 from dropping frames which is part of why it's helping the e1000 more (I think). I agree that we need to bottom out on this and it's why we are dedicating the time and resources to this effort. We also appreciate all the effort to help resolve this as well. This should result in a better performing 2.6 stack and drivers. The new TSO code is a big step in that direction as well. Cheers, John