| To: | Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 00:34:36 +0200 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0506211507110.21812-100000@bluewest.scyld.com> |
| References: | <p73oe9zbcx0.fsf@verdi.suse.de> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0506211507110.21812-100000@bluewest.scyld.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> While much has changed since then, the same basic parameters remain > - cache line size In 96 we had 32 byte cache lines. These days 64-128 are common, with some 256 byte cache line systems around. > - frame header size (MAC+IP+ProtocolHeader) In 96 people tended to not use time stamps. > - hot cache lines from copying or type classification Not sure what you mean with that. > - cold memory lines from PCI writes I suspect in '96 chipsets also didn't do as aggressive prefetching as they do today. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Donald Becker |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch,rfc] allow registration of multiple netpolls per interface, Matt Mackall |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Donald Becker |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Donald Becker |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |