[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] TCP congestion schedulers

To: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] TCP congestion schedulers
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:51:54 -0800
Cc: ak@xxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, baruch@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503211605300.6729@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <421CF5E5.1060606@xxxxxxxxx> <20050223135732.39e62c6c.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <421D1E66.5090301@xxxxxxxx> <421D30FA.1060900@xxxxxxxxx> <20050225120814.5fa77b13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050309210442.3e9786a6.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4230288F.1030202@xxxxxxxxx> <20050310182629.1eab09ec.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050311120054.4bbf675a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050311201011.360c00da.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050314151726.532af90d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m13bur5qyo.fsf@xxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503211605300.6729@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:25:56 -0500 (EST)
John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Would you really expect a single extra indirect call per ack to have a
> significant performance impact?  This is surprising to me.  Where does the
> cost come from?  Replacing instruction cache lines?

Maybe not for ACK processing (that's very thick already) but
perhaps for a lighter fast path definitely so.

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