On Nov 15, 2007 4:25 PM, Jack Vogel <jfvogel_at_gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 15, 2007 4:22 PM, Andre Oppermann <andre_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > Scott Ullrich wrote: > > > On 11/15/07, Doug Ambrisko <ambrisko_at_ambrisko.com> wrote: > > >> Hmm, I forgot about the 2970 which are AMD based. Can you check the > > >> BIOS to see if there is an option to turn it on? I think this is an > > >> Intel feature. AMD might have something close? We have one 2970 > > >> that we've played with a little but not much. I can't say for sure > > >> if it has it. > > > > > > Right you are. As of BIOS 1.2.2 I do not see a I/OAT option. Guess > > > I will need to pick up a different server as we are interested in what > > > kind of packet forwarding rate increase that this feature might bring > > > on a heavily loaded firewall. > > > > Not much. Unless your firewall is in usermode. Otherwise the data > > stays in the kernel and I/OAT is of not help as no copying happens. > > Your CPU is probably spending half of its clock cycles waiting on > > cache misses from newly arrived packets. Some Intel chipset integrated > > gige ports have a cache prefetch feature (duno whether our driver > > supports it) that would help quite a bit for your case. > > What might help this is multiqueue support on the receive AND send, > and stack support for the same. Not sure what the stack changes > would look like, but I know there's interest in this sort of thing, so > naturally I'd be into it :) I have support for this already in my ethng branch. I'll be adding support for zero-copy send and receive for TOE to my toestack branch as soon as I feel better :-(. It would probably not be that hard to generalize it to I/OAT. -KipReceived on Fri Nov 16 2007 - 00:08:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:22 UTC