| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 15 Sep 2002 21:23:21 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, todd-lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, pfeather@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0209151053530.22001-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| References: | <20020913.150439.27187393.davem@redhat.com> <Pine.GSO.4.30.0209151053530.22001-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Your proposal does make sense although compute power would still be a player. I think the key would be parallelization; Oh I forgot to mention that some of these cards also compute a cookie for you on receive packets, and your meant to point the input processing for that packet to a cpu whose number is derived from that cookie it gives you. Lockless per-cpu packet input queues make this sort of hard for us to implement currently. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: packet re-ordering on SMP machines., Alexey Kuznetsov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Chris Friesen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, todd-lkml |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |