From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 31 01:31:54 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B36316A46D for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 01:31:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B1A13C44C for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 01:31:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 14so5521nzn for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 18:31:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=a7F6KaPFIR7Lmyrz5alAokwrX3aMINSVeiozb7DVv33gQywnS3Ohn27FgaYjI2Hgdz7OBTr5EzTsfwaTjy9NbqAIS4FoWi8dri9Kyz7f+FOQ62illBkAhAFEj4n+vBGrhIjICjWa9YuM0VvIRsIOLRfg/Yzxn5SJRgq91Se7hP0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ENdOnwe5jiU8uhgJFs1CXAgg0OeOR5cNF1RGr5QeCjpGu4WoU2b6Mboo4rrEan4lGhdVhjZBov5MFHF//Z9D7FDINnLfe0YGa+ClIKdA/c8vOGsxNYDlyNG/PFyIuF4OyKF4PHW7A/5sB1fvHXV41IANvQ2vh9ahVg3WJi1ZuiU= Received: by 10.114.148.1 with SMTP id v1mr79003wad.1180575113050; Wed, 30 May 2007 18:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v35sm873653wah.2007.05.30.18.31.50; Wed, 30 May 2007 18:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4V1VkgS021950 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 May 2007 10:31:46 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l4V1Vj3P021949; Thu, 31 May 2007 10:31:45 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:31:45 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: Fabian Keil Message-ID: <20070531013145.GD17238@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <20070529121837.GA12808@cdnetworks.co.kr> <20070530201730.09d3f460@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070530201730.09d3f460@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: re(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 01:31:54 -0000 On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 08:17:30PM +0200, Fabian Keil wrote: > Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > I've committed a fix for bus_dma(9) bug which resulted in poor Tx > > performance on TSO enabled re(4) driver. With the fix and revised > > re(4) I got more sane performance on re(4). Because there are too many > > hardwares that rely on re(4) I'd like to hear any success or failure > > reports before revised re(4) hits the tree. > > With: > > fk@africanqueen ~ $pciconf -lv | grep -A 4 ^re > re0@pci0:9:0: class=0x020000 card=0x816910ec chip=0x816910ec rev=0x10 hdr=0x00 > vendor = 'Realtek Semiconductor' > device = 'RTL8110SB Single-Chip Gigabit LOM Ethernet Controller' > class = network > subclass = ethernet > > and netserver running on the host with re(4), > and netperf running on a system with em(4) > and FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE, I got: > > With TSO4 disabled: > > Stock re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 461.63 > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 459.43 > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 460.71 > > Patched re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 459.92 > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 461.14 > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 460.54 > > With TSO4 enabled: > > Stock re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 460.12 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 460.32 > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 461.89 > > Patched re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 459.97 > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 459.27 > 65536 32768 32768 10.01 459.60 > > Changing the position of netperf and netserver > (netperf now running on the host with re(4)): > > With TSO4 disabled: > > Stock re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 326.10 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 325.81 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 325.75 > > Patched re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 325.89 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 327.28 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 328.06 > > With TSO4 enabled: > > Stock re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 326.64 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 326.46 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 326.41 > > Patched re(4): > > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 328.22 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 328.03 > 65536 32768 32768 10.00 328.41 > > During the tests with the stock re(4) I got > "re0: can't map defragmented mbuf (error 0)" > four times. I didn't get any warnings with > the patched one. With stock re(4) with TSO enabled I couldn't even pass netperf test due to lots of above errors. You should never see these messages with patched re(4). > > em(4) was running with standard options all the time. > > re0 is compiled into the kernel and I had > to reboot between the test triples. > > Fabian Thanks so much for testing!! -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon