From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Speed-up pfifo_fast lookup using a bitmap
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:27:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090813112715.GA7010@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFD762AF41.E7A6EE8D-ON65257611.00389F3C-65257611.003AC5BB@in.ibm.com>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 04:11:57PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> > Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
> >
> > > but the test numbers came a little less, since it takes a few more
> > > memory references on enqueue/dequeue.
> >
> > If it's exactly "a little less" I'd consider keeping it private yet...
>
> Sounds reasonable. To quantify that, I will test again for a longer
> run and report the difference.
Yes, more numbers would be appreciated.
>
> > Btw, I wonder how much gain of your previous (_CAN_BYPASS) patch is
> > saved after this change...
>
> The tests are on the latest tree which contains CAN_BYPASS. So a
> single netperf process running this change will get no advantage
> since this enqueue/dequeue never happens unless the NIC is slow.
> But for multiple processes, it should help.
I mean: since the previous patch saved ~2% on omitting enqueue/dequeue,
and now enqueue/dequeue is ~2% faster, is it still worth to omit this?
Regards,
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-13 11:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-13 7:28 [PATCH] Speed-up pfifo_fast lookup using a bitmap Krishna Kumar
2009-08-13 10:08 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-08-13 10:41 ` Krishna Kumar2
2009-08-13 11:27 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-08-14 8:19 Krishna Kumar
2009-08-14 11:01 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-08-14 13:24 Krishna Kumar
2009-08-14 21:36 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-08-18 2:03 ` David Miller
2009-08-18 16:46 ` Krishna Kumar2
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090813112715.GA7010@ff.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=krkumar2@in.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.