Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:11:27 +1100 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Marius Strobl <marius@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r293854 - head/sys/dev/e1000 Message-ID: <5698473F.8030203@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201601132147.u0DLlR38017711@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201601132147.u0DLlR38017711@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14/01/2016 8:47 AM, Marius Strobl wrote: > Author: marius > Date: Wed Jan 13 21:47:27 2016 > New Revision: 293854 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/293854 > > Log: > Given that em(4), lem(4) and igb(4) hardware doesn't require the > alignment guarantees provided by m_defrag(9), use m_collapse(9) > instead for performance reasons. > While at it, sanitize the statistics softc members, i. e. retire > unused ones and add SYSCTL nodes missing for actually used ones. > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D4717 > > Modified: > head/sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c > head/sys/dev/e1000/if_em.h > head/sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.c > head/sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.h > head/sys/dev/e1000/if_lem.c > head/sys/dev/e1000/if_lem.h What kind of performance / overhead delta can be expected for this change? Is this worth MFC and/or Relnotes ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5698473F.8030203>