| To: | Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Giving priority to messages |
| From: | Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 25 Sep 2000 20:37:15 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | Donald Becker's message of "Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:25:36 -0400 (EDT)" |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009192217060.1031-100000@vaio.greennet> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hi,
>>>>> "Donald" == Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Donald> This is one of the reasons for drivers to keep their Tx
Donald> queues to a reasonable length. Two years ago an
Donald> almost-always-sufficient Tx queue length was between 6 and
Donald> 10, so most of my bus-master drivers use a queue length of
Donald> 10. Ten 1500 byte packets at 10Mbps is still not too
Donald> long, but ten 60 byte packets (approx. 96 byte periods on
Donald> the wire) isn't very long at 100Mbps.
Would it make sense to use the data size (the accumulated
skb->len of the sk_buffs in a packet scheduler´s queue) instead of the
current tx queue length (number of sk_buffs) for mesuring the packet
scheduler´s queues?
Henner
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Giving priority to messages, Henner Eisen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH/RFC] (long) network interface changes, Henner Eisen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Giving priority to messages, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Giving priority to messages, Donald Becker |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |