Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4)

[Lincoln Dale <ltd@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:18 AM 14/06/2003 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:

> > Not really... one retransmit and the TCP header size grows
> > due to the SACK options.
>
> OK scratch that idea.

why not have a performance option that is a tradeoff between optimum 
payload size versus efficiency.

unless i misunderstand the problem, you can certainly pad the TCP options 
with NOPs ...

> > I find it truly bletcherous what you're trying to do here.
>
> I think so too, but its hard to ignore ~100Mbit/sec in performance.

another option is for the write() path is for instantant-send TCP sockets 
to delay the copy_from_user() until the IP+TCP header size is known.
i wouldn't expect the net folks to like that, however ..


cheers,

lincoln.