From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH 0/9 Rev3] Implement batching skb API and support in IPoIB Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:37 -0700 Message-ID: <46CC6DD1.5020105@hp.com> References: <20070821.115143.23013721.davem@davemloft.net> <20070821.212229.82050253.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jagana@us.ibm.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, gaagaan@gmail.com, Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, kumarkr@linux.ibm.com, rdreier@cisco.com, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, mcarlson@broadcom.com, jeff@garzik.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, mchan@broadcom.com, tgraf@suug.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org, johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, kaber@trash.net, sri@us.ibm.com To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070821.212229.82050253.davem@davemloft.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > I think the jury is still out, but seeing TSO perform even slightly > worse with the batching changes in place would be very worrysome. > This applies to both throughput and cpu utilization. Should it be any more or less worrysome than small packet performance (eg the TCP_RR stuff I posted recently) being rather worse with TSO enabled than with it disabled? rick jones