From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Herbert Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] RFS hardware acceleration (v2) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:42:02 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1290192176.2671.38.camel@bwh-desktop> <1290194386.2671.59.camel@bwh-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: David Miller , Rick Jones , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:63369 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751544Ab0KSTmI (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:42:08 -0500 Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oAJJg5D8005352 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:42:06 -0800 Received: from pwi5 (pwi5.prod.google.com [10.241.219.5]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oAJJg4si018186 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:42:04 -0800 Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so1095784pwi.39 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:42:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1290194386.2671.59.camel@bwh-desktop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > So accelerated RFS gave a 6-13% improvement over software RFS in > transaction rate for these various cases. > Very nice preliminary results! Are you seeing any OOO packets in these tests, I am still holding on to hope that these can be avoided with such mechanisms. Tom