| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Intel and TOE in the news |
| From: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:38:01 +0100 |
| Cc: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, Leonid Grossman <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'rick jones'" <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Alex Aizman'" <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1108996313.1090.178.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| References: | <20050220230713.GA62354@muc.de> <200502210332.j1L3WkDD014744@guinness.s2io.com> <20050221115006.GB87576@muc.de> <20050221132844.GU31837@postel.suug.ch> <1108994621.1089.158.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050221141714.GV31837@postel.suug.ch> <1108996313.1090.178.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
jamal writes:
> Infact performance goes down when you batch in some cases depending on
> the hardware used. My investigation shows that if you have a fast CPU
> and a fast bus, theres always only one packet in flight within the
> stack. Batching by definition requires more than one packet.
Hello!
Yes when queue length/batch increases you're risking to load the L2
twice for the same skb. Which is the most expensive operation....
Forwarding profiles show most functions where cache misses occur.
--ro
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Intel and TOE in the news, Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Intel and TOE in the news, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Intel and TOE in the news, Thomas Graf |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Intel and TOE in the news, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |