Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:48:23 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, tegge@freebsd.org, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Subject: Re: Much improved sendfile(2) kernel implementation Message-ID: <20060922234708.V11343@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <45145F1D.8020005@freebsd.org> References: <4511B9B1.2000903@freebsd.org> <17683.63162.919620.114649@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <45145F1D.8020005@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> Without patch: >> 87380 393216 393216 10.00 2163.08 100.00 19.35 3.787 >> 1.466 Without patch + TSO: >> 87380 393216 393216 10.00 4367.18 71.54 42.07 1.342 >> 1.578 With patch: >> 87380 393216 393216 10.01 1882.73 86.15 18.43 3.749 >> 1.604 With patch + TSO: >> 87380 393216 393216 10.00 6961.08 47.69 60.11 0.561 >> 1.415 The impact of TSO is clearly dramatic, especially when combined with the patch, but I'm a bit concerned by the drop in performance in the patched non-TSO case. For network cards which will always have TSO enabled, this isn't an issue, but do we see a similar affect for drivers without TSO? What can we put this drop down to? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060922234708.V11343>