jamal writes:
> Good news to the intel folks: My results agree yours this time.
> Robert, could you double check on opterons?
> #1, #2, and #5 _with copybreak_ turned on gave the best results. I got
> about the same results as with all turned on +/- a few pps which could
> be attributed to experimental errors.
> Without copybreak on, the same setup using #1, #2, and #5 also gave the
> best result.
>
> The interesting thing is #1 alone was close behind. #1 and #2 together
> was not as good. This leads me to believe that copybreak masks cycles
> that make the prefetch look better. If you get rid of copybreak, you end
> up with worse numbers - you need to have code with about the same cpu
> and mem path characteristics if you are going to replace it.
> I dont think copybreak is useful _at all_ for routing. The accounting
> reasoning makes sense, but I do plan to chase the testscase John pointed
> out with UDP at some later point...
I wont have time do any testing for a while... (Next week). I did only
compare 0/1/1+2/1+2+3+4+5 and 1+2 was best this with routing load hash,
FIB lookups GC etc.
Was your results with just single flow routing?
Type load made of of difference for me at least with copybreak setting.
Cheers.
--ro
PS. Maybe it would idea to specify a little benchmark for testing to
get comparable results and more in touch with real network loads?
-
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
