From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 11 20:03:42 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215E016A469; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:03:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FD413C45B; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:03:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5BK3f6B028619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id l5BK3DD2081311; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:03:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18029.43672.255434.192320@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:03:13 -0400 (EDT) To: Andre Oppermann In-Reply-To: <466DA974.8000106@freebsd.org> References: <200706111459.l5BExvTp020932@repoman.freebsd.org> <466D9BBB.1060601@freebsd.org> <466D9D94.1020908@samsco.org> <466DA400.6000003@freebsd.org> <18029.42579.130017.451610@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <466DA974.8000106@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Scott Long , src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mbuf.h src/sys/net if_ethersubr.c src/sys/dev/mxge mxge_lro.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:03:42 -0000 Andre Oppermann writes: > Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > FWIW, LRO triples receive performance for standard frames (3.xGb/s -> > > 9.3Gb/s) on decent hardware. > > Nice to see that. The problem with LRO at the moment is that it only > works on short RTT links (<1ms) because the TCP stack doesn't do ABC > yet and growing the send window with a LRO receiver is going to be > painfully slow as the RTT goes up. FWIW, it is actually seems better than that on a pair of dual-package, quad core 2.66GHz Xeon X5355s: dust02% netperf243 -P0 -C -c -Hdust01-m 65536 32768 32768 10.00 2373.44 7.77 21.41 2.146 5.912 < enable lro on dust01 > dust02% netperf243 -P0 -C -c -Hdust01-m 65536 32768 32768 10.00 9271.76 9.84 22.22 0.695 1.571 > Lets add the interface capabilities flag for LRO including the ifconfig > support and be done with this episode. OK. I'm about out of time for today. If you haven't beaten me to it, I will try to do it tomorrow or the next day. I assume you're willing to review a patch? Drew