| To: | fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: purpose of the skb head pool |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 01 May 2003 02:35:28 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <877k9bc5ox.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> |
| References: | <20030429135506.A22411@lst.de> <16046.30879.738356.495523@robur.slu.se> <877k9bc5ox.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 12:38:38 +0200 Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Vanilla 2.5.66 381 kpps > Magazine 431 kpps > Magazine + no skb_head_pool 435 kpps Can you rerun this test with random source/destination addresses, to get more realistic (for some configurations) numbers? He can do this, but the issues we're trying to tackle first have nothing to even do with what kind of routing cache accesses are done. It's all networking buffer overhead we're worried about at this stage. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: purpose of the skb head pool, Florian Weimer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: dev->destructor, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: purpose of the skb head pool, Florian Weimer |
| Next by Thread: | sendfile() & unlink(), Eric Lemoine |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |