On Wed, 2005-07-12 at 14:09 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: John Ronciak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:56:29 -0800 > > > The different between the cases was not significant and the > > prefetching cases were better than no prefetching. Again, still no > > detriment to performance. > > I still think what e1000 is doing is way too aggressive. > > I know of at least one platform, sparc64, that doesn't > even have enough prefetch slots on certain chips to support > the number of outstanding prefetches you are issuing. > > One, maybe two, prefetches per RX skb processed should be > more than enough. As demonstrated by Robert. > > Please reduce the aggressiveness of your prefetching, at > least for the first implementation that goes into the tree. > Ok? We can discuss doing more aggressive things in the > future. >
I will also try to validate Roberts results on the Xeon tommorow. John, think of it this way: none of us are against the prefetch. Given that, wouldnt you prefer the best performing prefetch setup? Thats what Roberts results on the opteron at least show. To be honest, I am still skeptical with anything more than a single prefetch ala David Mosberger which i know doesnt harm older hardware performance but perhaps the two prefetches maybe a compromise. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
