From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:54:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:54:33 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:59779 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:54:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020905.235159.128049953.davem@redhat.com> To: Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, tcw@tempest.prismnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <18563262.1031269721@[10.10.2.3]> References: <20020905.204721.49430679.davem@redhat.com> <18563262.1031269721@[10.10.2.3]> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Martin J. Bligh" Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:48:42 -0700 Just to throw another firework into the fire whilst people are awake, NAPI does not seem to scale to this sort of load, which was disappointing, as we were hoping it would solve some of our interrupt load problems ... Stupid question, are you sure you have CONFIG_E1000_NAPI enabled? NAPI is also not the panacea to all problems in the world. I bet your greatest gain would be obtained from going to Tux and using appropriate IRQ affinity settings and making sure Tux threads bind to same cpu as device where they accept connections. It is standard method to obtain peak specweb performance.