| To: | "Herman Dierks" <hdierks@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) |
| From: | "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:21:16 -0700 |
| Cc: | <ltd@xxxxxxxxx>, <anton@xxxxxxxxx>, <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Nancy J Milliner" <milliner@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Ricardo C Gonzalez" <ricardoz@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Brian Twichell" <twichell@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcMzSuDMkewgo8NbQ/eWd2USmzVnawA6Bt3g |
| Thread-topic: | e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) |
Herman wrote: > Its only the MTU 1500 case with non-TSO that we are > discussing here so copying a few bytes is really not a big > deal as the data is already in cache from copying into > kernel. If it lets the adapter run at speed, thats what > customers want and what we need. Granted, if the HW could > deal with this we would not have to, but thats not the case > today so I want to spend a few CPU cycles to get best > performance. Again, if this is not done on other platforms, I > don't understand why you care. I care because adding the arch-specific hack creates a maintenance issue for me. -scott |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Nivedita Singhvi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Dave Hansen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Nivedita Singhvi |
| Next by Thread: | RE: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Dave Hansen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |