Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[patch\s+05\/13\]\s+remove\s+last_rx\s+update\s+from\s+loopback\s+device\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. h 09/13] bonding needs inet (score: 1)
Author: nville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:22:42 -0800
The last_rx field in the loopback driver is updated on every xmit but is not used otherwise. Accesses to ->last_rx cause unecessary traffic on the interlink for NUMA systems which limits the performa
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00955.html (9,320 bytes)

2. atch 13/13] WE-18 (aka WPA) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:39 -0500
akpm@xxxxxxxx wrote: From: Christoph Lameter <christoph@xxxxxxxxxx> The last_rx field in the loopback driver is updated on every xmit but is not used otherwise. Accesses to ->last_rx cause unecessary
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00963.html (10,399 bytes)

3. update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: xxxx
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:08:09 -0800
Nothing actually seems to use last_rx?
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00964.html (8,981 bytes)

4. te tx bounce bufs as needed (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:53:45 -0800
For one thing bonding load balancing uses it. You can argue that bonding of loopback devices is silly. But there are other things one might be able to do with last_rx and the fact that every driver f
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00973.html (9,690 bytes)

5. nce for IGMP (alb/tlb mode) (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:04:23 -0800
These loopback driver SMP optimizations are starting to really driver me crazy. Correct or not, I suspect there are a non-trivial number of folks out there who use loopback performance as an indicato
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00977.html (9,851 bytes)

6. update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: m@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:17:38 -0800
Every time the SGI guys with the 512 cpu machine find some shared memory reference they think they can legitimately remove, they try to do so.
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00978.html (9,450 bytes)

7. update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: m@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:23:25 -0800
Rick Jones wrote: These loopback driver SMP optimizations are starting to really driver me crazy. Correct or not, I suspect there are a non-trivial number of folks out there who use loopback performa
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00979.html (10,327 bytes)

8. update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: t@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:49:22 -0800
Nivedita Singhvi wrote: Rick Jones wrote: These loopback driver SMP optimizations are starting to really driver me crazy. Correct or not, I suspect there are a non-trivial number of folks out there w
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00980.html (10,952 bytes)

9. [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: akpm@xxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:22:42 -0800
The last_rx field in the loopback driver is updated on every xmit but is not used otherwise. Accesses to ->last_rx cause unecessary traffic on the interlink for NUMA systems which limits the performa
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02878.html (9,320 bytes)

10. Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:39 -0500
The last_rx field in the loopback driver is updated on every xmit but is not used otherwise. Accesses to ->last_rx cause unecessary traffic on the interlink for NUMA systems which limits the performa
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02886.html (10,363 bytes)

11. Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:08:09 -0800
Nothing actually seems to use last_rx?
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02887.html (9,064 bytes)

12. Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:53:45 -0800
For one thing bonding load balancing uses it. You can argue that bonding of loopback devices is silly. But there are other things one might be able to do with last_rx and the fact that every driver f
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02896.html (9,821 bytes)

13. Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:04:23 -0800
These loopback driver SMP optimizations are starting to really driver me crazy. Correct or not, I suspect there are a non-trivial number of folks out there who use loopback performance as an indicato
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02900.html (10,111 bytes)

14. Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:17:38 -0800
Every time the SGI guys with the 512 cpu machine find some shared memory reference they think they can legitimately remove, they try to do so.
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02901.html (9,630 bytes)

15. Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:23:25 -0800
These loopback driver SMP optimizations are starting to really driver me crazy. Correct or not, I suspect there are a non-trivial number of folks out there who use loopback performance as an indicat
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02902.html (10,474 bytes)

16. Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device (score: 1)
Author: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:49:22 -0800
These loopback driver SMP optimizations are starting to really driver me crazy. Correct or not, I suspect there are a non-trivial number of folks out there who use loopback performance as an indicat
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02903.html (11,299 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu