From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:42:41 -0700 Message-ID: <50046EB1.5040909@hp.com> References: <1342458113-10384-1-git-send-email-cascardo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50044F1D.6000703@hp.com> <20120716190611.GA1023@oc1711230544.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "yevgenyp@mellanox.co.il" , "ogerlitz@mellanox.com" , "amirv@mellanox.com" , "brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "klebers@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "anton@samba.org" To: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo Return-path: Received: from g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.63]:25258 "EHLO g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751963Ab2GPTmw (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:42:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120716190611.GA1023@oc1711230544.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/16/2012 12:06 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > >> What is the effect on packet-per-second performance? (eg aggregate, >> burst-mode netperf TCP_RR with TCP_NODELAY set or perhaps UDP_RR) >> > I used uperf with TCP_NODELAY and 16 threads sending from another > machine 64000-sized writes for 60 seconds. > > I get 5898op/s (3.02Gb/s) without the patch against 18022ops/s > (9.23Gb/s) with the patch. I was thinking more along the lines of an additional comparison, explicitly using netperf TCP_RR or something like it, not just the packets per second from a bulk transfer test. rick From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com (g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com [15.193.32.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.hp.com", Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Secure Server CA - G3" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CF2B2C010D for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:52:19 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <50046EB1.5040909@hp.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:42:41 -0700 From: Rick Jones MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput References: <1342458113-10384-1-git-send-email-cascardo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50044F1D.6000703@hp.com> <20120716190611.GA1023@oc1711230544.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20120716190611.GA1023@oc1711230544.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "amirv@mellanox.com" , "yevgenyp@mellanox.co.il" , "klebers@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "anton@samba.org" , "brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "ogerlitz@mellanox.com" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/16/2012 12:06 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > >> What is the effect on packet-per-second performance? (eg aggregate, >> burst-mode netperf TCP_RR with TCP_NODELAY set or perhaps UDP_RR) >> > I used uperf with TCP_NODELAY and 16 threads sending from another > machine 64000-sized writes for 60 seconds. > > I get 5898op/s (3.02Gb/s) without the patch against 18022ops/s > (9.23Gb/s) with the patch. I was thinking more along the lines of an additional comparison, explicitly using netperf TCP_RR or something like it, not just the packets per second from a bulk transfer test. rick