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