Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Giving\s+priority\s+to\s+messages\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Giving\s+priority\s+to\s+messages\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Ramón Agüero <ramon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:29:54 +0200; Hi all, I'm working within an application which creates packets and sends them. To accomplish this I use the dev_queue_xmit function. At a fist stage, everything runs OK, but I would like also to giv; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00071.html (8,404 bytes)
2. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:43:19 +0200; You can set skb->priority to values between 0 and 15 (see include/linux/pkt_sched.h) What actually happens depends on the queueing discipline that is set for the interface. The default one uses a 3 w; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00079.html (9,073 bytes)
3. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:25:36 -0400 (EDT); This is one of the reasons for drivers to keep their Tx queues to a reasonable length. Two years ago an almost-always-sufficient Tx queue length was between 6 and 10, so most of my bus-master drivers; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00081.html (9,319 bytes)
4. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:34:54 -0400 (EDT); Donald, The Tulip, for example, can have its DMA buffers stashed in a linked list instead of a ring structure. Maybe not the most efficient scheme but could you could play with priority queueing stru; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00082.html (9,118 bytes)
5. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:46:40 -0400; Keep thinking about loud... I was thinking that a linked list would be more flexible and potentially more optimal, but checking that out is 2.5.x material for me :); /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00083.html (8,694 bytes)
6. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:27:45 -0400 (EDT); .. Not if you want to work with different Tulip chip types! The driver sets up the descriptors as both a ring and a linked list. That way it works both with chips that only implement chained mode, an; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00084.html (10,609 bytes)
7. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: ewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 24 Sep 2000 14:19:30 +0200; Dear Jamal, jamal> The Tulip, for example, can have its DMA buffers stashed in jamal> a linked list instead of a ring structure. Maybe not the jamal> most efficient scheme but could you could play wi; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00124.html (8,655 bytes)
8. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 25 Sep 2000 20:37:15 +0200; 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,; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00125.html (8,639 bytes)
9. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: berger@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:12:34 -0400 (EDT); The data size frequently isn't a better metric: - On a busy half duplex network your outbound queue delay is a primarily function of the number of packets, not the size of those packets. - Is it real; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00128.html (9,466 bytes)
10. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: cker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:37:02 -0400 (EDT); Actually, this is not re-ordering per-se. This would be done _per-flow_ and not with packets within the same flow. i.e certain flows are more important than others and would skip FIFO queue rules. B; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00129.html (8,436 bytes)
11. Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Ramón Agüero <ramon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:29:54 +0200; Hi all, I'm working within an application which creates packets and sends them. To accomplish this I use the dev_queue_xmit function. At a fist stage, everything runs OK, but I would like also to giv; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00215.html (8,404 bytes)
12. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:43:19 +0200; You can set skb->priority to values between 0 and 15 (see include/linux/pkt_sched.h) What actually happens depends on the queueing discipline that is set for the interface. The default one uses a 3 w; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00223.html (9,198 bytes)
13. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:25:36 -0400 (EDT); This is one of the reasons for drivers to keep their Tx queues to a reasonable length. Two years ago an almost-always-sufficient Tx queue length was between 6 and 10, so most of my bus-master drivers; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00225.html (9,362 bytes)
14. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:34:54 -0400 (EDT); Donald, The Tulip, for example, can have its DMA buffers stashed in a linked list instead of a ring structure. Maybe not the most efficient scheme but could you could play with priority queueing stru; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00226.html (9,166 bytes)
15. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:46:40 -0400; Keep thinking about loud... I was thinking that a linked list would be more flexible and potentially more optimal, but checking that out is 2.5.x material for me :); /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00227.html (8,741 bytes)
16. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:27:45 -0400 (EDT); .. Not if you want to work with different Tulip chip types! The driver sets up the descriptors as both a ring and a linked list. That way it works both with chips that only implement chained mode, an; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00228.html (10,671 bytes)
17. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 24 Sep 2000 14:19:30 +0200; Dear Jamal, jamal> The Tulip, for example, can have its DMA buffers stashed in jamal> a linked list instead of a ring structure. Maybe not the jamal> most efficient scheme but could you could play wi; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00268.html (8,702 bytes)
18. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 25 Sep 2000 20:37:15 +0200; Hi, 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>; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00269.html (8,687 bytes)
19. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:12:34 -0400 (EDT); The data size frequently isn't a better metric: - On a busy half duplex network your outbound queue delay is a primarily function of the number of packets, not the size of those packets. - Is it real; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00272.html (9,503 bytes)
20. Re: Giving priority to messages (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:37:02 -0400 (EDT); Henner, Actually, this is not re-ordering per-se. This would be done _per-flow_ and not with packets within the same flow. i.e certain flows are more important than others and would skip FIFO queue r; /archives/netdev/2000-09/msg00273.html (8,458 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]