On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
> Le vendredi 16 avril 2010 à 11:35 -0700, Tom Herbert a écrit :
>> Results with "tbench 16" on an 8 core Intel machine.
>>
>> No RPS/RFS:  2155 MB/sec
>> RPS (0ff mask): 1700 MB/sec
>> RFS: 1097
>>

Blah, I mistakingly reported that... should have been:

No RPS/RFS:  2155 MB/sec
RPS (0ff mask): 1097 MB/sec
RFS: 1700 MB/sec

Sorry about that!

quoted text
>> I am not particularly surprised by the results, using loopback
>> interface already provides good parallelism and RPS/RFS really would
>> only add overhead and more trips between CPUs (last part is why RPS <
>> RFS I suspect)-- I guess this is why we've never enabled RPS on
>> loopback :-)
>>
>> Eric, do you have a particular concern that this could affect a real workload?
>>
>
> I was expecting RFS to be better than RPS at least, for this particular
> workload (tcp over loopback)
>
This was my expectation too, and what my "corrected" numbers show :-)
But, I take it this is different in your results?

Tom
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html