From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Default offload settings in Ethernet drivers Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:41:31 +0100 Message-ID: <49415EDB.3030006@computer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mailrelay010.isp.belgacom.be ([195.238.6.177]:24066 "EHLO mailrelay010.isp.belgacom.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755952AbYLKSls (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:41:48 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (athloroad.xperim.be [192.168.1.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by via.xperim.be (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-8ubuntu1) with ESMTP id mBBIfYqf025140 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:41:36 +0100 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi! A discussion recently took place on the power mailing list on the subject of the impact of (hardware-assisted) offload functions on the power efficiency of the overall system. The discussion was brought on by me noticing that not all drivers enable all of their offload features by default (case in point: r8169). Although the discussion may not be complete, early indications are that: 1. Hardware-assisted offloads improve power efficiency unless implemented in a separate CPU (TOE / Total Offloading); 2. It would probably be a good idea to enable hardware-assisted offloads other than TOE by default given the above. I would therefore like to sollicit views here: 1. Would changing default offload settings in Ethernet drivers help to save the planet? 2. Which offload settings does it make sense to enable by default? Thanks, Jan