Re: Much improved sendfile(2) kernel implementation

From: David Malone <dwmalone_at_maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 08:38:33 +0100
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> The impact of TSO is clearly dramatic, especially when combined with the 
> patch, but I'm a bit concerned by the drop in performance in the patched 
> non-TSO case.  For network cards which will always have TSO enabled, this 
> isn't an issue, but do we see a similar affect for drivers without TSO?  
> What can we put this drop down to?

We probably also need to make sure that any performance increase
in TSO isn't due to us getting TCP congestion control wrong. I think
in Linux they had problems when they first introduced TSO because
TCP was advancing the congestion window by a TSO-sized chunk instead
of a wire packet. OTOH, I think Andre and Drew's tests are low-latency,
so congestion control isn't likely to be playing a big role, so the
improvements are unlikely to be due to this.

	David.
Received on Sat Sep 23 2006 - 05:38:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:00 UTC