| 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. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement, Andy Furniss |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [15/*] [INET] Fix IPsec calculation in ip_append_data/ip6_append_data, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] TCP congestion schedulers, John Heffner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] TCP congestion schedulers, Baruch Even |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |