| To: | Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:26:19 +0200 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1031339954.3d78ffb257d22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3D78C9BD.5080905@xxxxxxxxxx> <53430559.1031304588@[10.10.2.3]> <3D78E7A5.7050306@xxxxxxxxxx> <20020906202646.A2185@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1031339954.3d78ffb257d22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.22.1i |
> If you just wanted to speed things up, you could get the > clients to specify ports instead of letting the kernel > cycle through for a free port..:) Better would be probably to change the kernel to keep a limited list of free ports in a free list. The grabbing a free port would be an O(1) operation. I'm not entirely sure it is worth it in this case. The locks are probably the majority of the cost. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Nivedita Singhvi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |