On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 07:41:29AM -0500, jamal wrote: > > ok - that's fair. I suspect the hyperthreading case is one where > > binding the IRQs to particule "CPUs" is necessary to reproduce > > the results. > > > > > Note: I didnt bind anything. The p4/xeon starts with routing everything > to CPU#0 - i just left it like that. I am taking it this is what you > were asking for earlier?
Yes. In general, one gets better cache utilization when binding IRQs to a single CPU and often translates into better overall performance. It's also useful for benchmarking - reproducible results. > > > One could draw the conclusion that copybreak is good or prefetch is bad. > > > > Like Robert, I conclude that both helped in this case. > > eh? Are we looking at the same results? Robert's conclusion: copybreak > _bad_, _some_ prefetch good. Robert commented on *your* results - I only agreed with him. > Mine so far is inconclusive although one > could almost say copybreak good - which is the opposite of what Robert > concluded. Yes - his results indicated copybreak hurt perf on the AMD box. Another reason for the e1000 maintainer to enable copybreak. ;) grant - 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
