> On Jul 13, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> Hey Lonnie,
>
> Wow, thanks for benching that (and watching the git repo for the
> experiment-of-the-day). This performance increase certainly exceeds my
> expectations; I'm quite pleased it's working so well.
Another huge improveme
Hey Lonnie,
Wow, thanks for benching that (and watching the git repo for the
experiment-of-the-day). This performance increase certainly exceeds my
expectations; I'm quite pleased it's working so well.
You might, by the way, be interested in using Flent for testing. It's
slightly more scientific,
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:49:45 -0500
> Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>
>> For certain lower-end x86 boxes I test, I noticed WG 0.0.20180708 w/NAPI
>> actually slowed down receive performance.
>>
>> Jason recently added "receive: use gro call i
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:49:45 -0500
Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
> For certain lower-end x86 boxes I test, I noticed WG 0.0.20180708 w/NAPI
> actually slowed down receive performance.
>
> Jason recently added "receive: use gro call instead of plain call" [1]
> commit, which made a big performance imp
For certain lower-end x86 boxes I test, I noticed WG 0.0.20180708 w/NAPI
actually slowed down receive performance.
Jason recently added "receive: use gro call instead of plain call" [1] commit,
which made a big performance improvement.
Here is a test on a PC Engines APU2 ...
pbx4: AMD GX-412TC
