| To: | dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:23:25 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, becker@xxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <42B9DA4D.5090103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050622180654.GX14251@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050622.132241.21929037.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42B9DA4D.5090103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:38:21 +0200 > Then maybe we could also play with prefetchw() in the case the > incoming frame is small enough to be copied to a new skb. That's a good idea too. In fact, this would deal with platforms that use non-temporal stores in their memcpy() implementation. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Eric Dumazet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |