Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-12 Thread Eugene Surovegin
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 06:57:24PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
 
 On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 08:26 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
  
  We shouldn't make it too complicated. We can always select different
  settings 
  in the defconfig file. My thinking here is to better wast a little
  memory 
  with a potential performance improvement. Just me 0.02$
 
 If it gets really critical, then we can move those settings to the
 device-tree.

Come on guys, it's not that critical. I guess I just don't trust a 
certain company :)

-- 
Eugene

--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-11 Thread Eugene Surovegin
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
 On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
  On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
   Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
   performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
   values to match this setup.
  
   Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ---
 
  Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?
 
 I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have any 
 numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256 buffers.

This cannot be true for all chips. Default numbers I selected weren't 
random. In particular, 256 for Tx doesn't make a lot of sense for 405. 
You just gonna waste memory.

I'd be quite reluctant to follow such advices from AMCC without actual 
details. 

-- 
Eugene

--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-11 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:48 -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
 On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
  On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
   On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
values to match this setup.
   
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
  
   Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?
  
  I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have any 
  numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256 buffers.
 
 This cannot be true for all chips. Default numbers I selected weren't 
 random. In particular, 256 for Tx doesn't make a lot of sense for 405. 
 You just gonna waste memory.
 
 I'd be quite reluctant to follow such advices from AMCC without actual 
 details. 

I think we can make defaults based on other config options nowadays. Not
very nice but we could do things like

default 128 if PPC_40x
default 256

Or even more detailed.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-11 Thread Stefan Roese
On Friday 11 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
 On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:48 -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
  On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
   On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
 Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase
 the performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the
 default values to match this setup.

 Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ---
   
Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?
  
   I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have
   any numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256
   buffers.
 
  This cannot be true for all chips. Default numbers I selected weren't
  random. In particular, 256 for Tx doesn't make a lot of sense for 405.
  You just gonna waste memory.

This may be the case with the old 405 PPC's. But with the new ones coming 
out right now, like the up to 666MHz 405EX with GBit support, 256 could be an 
improvement. I still owe you figures though. Will try to do some testing in a 
short while.

  I'd be quite reluctant to follow such advices from AMCC without actual
  details.

 I think we can make defaults based on other config options nowadays. Not
 very nice but we could do things like

   default 128 if PPC_40x
   default 256

 Or even more detailed.

We shouldn't make it too complicated. We can always select different settings 
in the defconfig file. My thinking here is to better wast a little memory 
with a potential performance improvement. Just me 0.02$

Best regards,
Stefan
--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-11 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 08:26 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
 
 We shouldn't make it too complicated. We can always select different
 settings 
 in the defconfig file. My thinking here is to better wast a little
 memory 
 with a potential performance improvement. Just me 0.02$

If it gets really critical, then we can move those settings to the
device-tree.

Ben.


--
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


[PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-05 Thread Stefan Roese
Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
values to match this setup.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
 drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig |4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig b/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig
index 0d3e738..5a06727 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig
@@ -9,12 +9,12 @@ config IBM_NEW_EMAC
 config IBM_NEW_EMAC_RXB
int Number of receive buffers
depends on IBM_NEW_EMAC
-   default 128
+   default 256
 
 config IBM_NEW_EMAC_TXB
int Number of transmit buffers
depends on IBM_NEW_EMAC
-   default 64
+   default 256
 
 config IBM_NEW_EMAC_POLL_WEIGHT
int MAL NAPI polling weight
-- 
1.5.4.rc2

--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-05 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
 Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
 performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
 values to match this setup.
 
 Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ---

Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?

Ben.

  drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig |4 ++--
  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig b/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig
 index 0d3e738..5a06727 100644
 --- a/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig
 +++ b/drivers/net/ibm_newemac/Kconfig
 @@ -9,12 +9,12 @@ config IBM_NEW_EMAC
  config IBM_NEW_EMAC_RXB
   int Number of receive buffers
   depends on IBM_NEW_EMAC
 - default 128
 + default 256
  
  config IBM_NEW_EMAC_TXB
   int Number of transmit buffers
   depends on IBM_NEW_EMAC
 - default 64
 + default 256
  
  config IBM_NEW_EMAC_POLL_WEIGHT
   int MAL NAPI polling weight

--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-05 Thread Stefan Roese
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
 On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
  Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
  performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
  values to match this setup.
 
  Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ---

 Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?

I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have any 
numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256 buffers.

Best regards,
Stefan
--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-05 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 13:38 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
 On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
  On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
   Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
   performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
   values to match this setup.
  
   Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ---
 
  Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?
 
 I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have any 
 numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256 buffers.

Ok. Well, it's just a .config option so I suppose the patch is fine. Can
you also update the defconfigs (at least for the recent AMCC boards) ?

Ben.


--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-05 Thread Josh Boyer
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:53:06 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 13:38 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
  On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
   On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
values to match this setup.
   
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
  
   Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?
  
  I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have any 
  numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256 buffers.
 
 Ok. Well, it's just a .config option so I suppose the patch is fine. Can
 you also update the defconfigs (at least for the recent AMCC boards) ?

No need for a defconfig update patch.  Paul or I usually do a general
defconfig update for most boards before the next kernel version.  This
will get picked up then.

josh
--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-05 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:48 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
 No need for a defconfig update patch.  Paul or I usually do a general
 defconfig update for most boards before the next kernel version.  This
 will get picked up then.

Will it ? I think the defconfigs will stick to the old value.

Ben.

--
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


Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

2008-01-05 Thread Josh Boyer
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:54:28 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:48 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
  No need for a defconfig update patch.  Paul or I usually do a general
  defconfig update for most boards before the next kernel version.  This
  will get picked up then.
 
 Will it ? I think the defconfigs will stick to the old value.

Put another way, if Kconfig doesn't update it automagically, I'll be
sure to do it myself. :)

josh
--
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