| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:23:45 +0200 |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, becker@xxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050622.191956.39166724.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050622.132241.21929037.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200506222242.j5MMgbxS009935@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050622231300.GC14251@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050622.191956.39166724.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:19:56PM -0400, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:13:00 +0200 > > > The computing time must be quite long to be really a win. > > You need to waste a few hundred cycles at least on a modern fast CPU. > > SKB allocation more than fits this requirement, and that is exactly > what the RX descriptor replenishment will do. It shouldn't in theory. Unless they did something bad to the slab allocator again when I wasn't looking ;-) > > Even if SKB allocation was only half the necessary number of cycles > for the prefetch to hit the cpu, it'd still be a win. If it's too small then it might be left in the noise. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, P |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |