| To: | ltd@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:41:22 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | anton@xxxxxxxxx, haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx, hdierks@xxxxxxxxxx, scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, dwg@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, milliner@xxxxxxxxxx, ricardoz@xxxxxxxxxx, twichell@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5.1.0.14.2.20030614114755.036abbb0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> |
| References: | <20030613.154634.74748085.davem@redhat.com> <20030613231836.GD32097@krispykreme> <5.1.0.14.2.20030614114755.036abbb0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Lincoln Dale <ltd@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:52:53 +1000 unless i misunderstand the problem, you can certainly pad the TCP options with NOPs ... You may not mangle packet if it is not your's alone. And every TCP packet is shared with TCP retransmit queue and therefore would need to be copied before being mangled. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Lincoln Dale |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Lincoln Dale |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Lincoln Dale |
| Next by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Lincoln Dale |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |