[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Preallocated skb's?

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Preallocated skb's?
From: yodaiken@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:36:32 -0600
Cc: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0009142212110.25283-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from jamal on Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:26:08PM -0400
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009141723530.1335-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0009142212110.25283-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:26:08PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> One of the things we need to measure still is the latency. The scheme
> currently used with dynamically adjusting the mitigation parameters might
> not affect latency much -- simply because the adjustement is based on the
> load. We still have to prove this. The theory is:
> Under a lot of congestion, you delay longer because the layers above
> you are congested as gauged from a feedback; and under low congestion, you
> should theoretically adjust all the way down to 1 interupt/packet. Under
> heavy load, your latency is already screwed anyways because of large
> backlog queue; this is regardless of mitigation.

Or maybe the extra delay in congested circumstances will cause more 
timeouts and that's precisely when you need to improve latency?

Victor Yodaiken 
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>