> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 11:24 > ... > > Thanks, David! > > I understand 1 TX queue is the bottleneck (however in Simon's > > test, TX=1 => 36.7Gb/s, TX=8 => 37.7 Gb/s, so it looks the TX=1 bottleneck > > is not so obvious). > > I'm just wondering how the bottleneck became much narrower with > > recent linux-next in Simon's result (36.7 Gb/s vs. 18.2 Gb/s). IMO there > > must be some latency somewhere. > > I think the whole thing here is that you misinterpreted what Eric said. > > He is not arguing that some regression did, or did not, happen. > > He instead was making the basic statement about the fact that due to > the lack of paralellness a single stream TCP case is harder to > optimize for high speed NICs. > > That is all. Thanks, I got it. I'm actually new to network performance tuning, trying to understand all the related details. :-) Thanks, -- Dexuan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
