From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: john@BlueSkyTours.com Subject: Re: r8169: slow samba performance Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:00:11 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: References: <46CC66D3.8030602@gmail.com> <20070822182116.GA5445@csy.ca> <46CC9290.3040501@gmail.com> <20070903210322.GB4444@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20070904203742.GB31783@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Bruce Cole , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Received: from nat1.blueskytours.com ([12.96.192.180]:57880 "HELO volcano.blueskytours.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753679AbXIDVAN (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:00:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070904203742.GB31783@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote: > john@BlueSkyTours.com : > [...] >> 20070903-2.6.23-rc5-r8169-test.patch applied against 2.6.23-rc5 works fine. >> Performance is acceptable. > > Does "acceptable" mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared > to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ? Without this patch, latency in bringing up emacs, or in display of pages in firefox is extremely high. With the patch, latency is pretty much what I see when using an old tulip based NIC. Is there a specific test you wish me to try? >> Would you like me to *just* try patches 1 & 2, to help narrow down anything? > > I expect patch #2 alone to be enough to enhance the performance. If it gets > proven, the patch would be a good candidate for a quick merge upstream. Okay, I will build another kernel with just #2 applied. John