From: Dan Malek <dan@mvista.com>
To: Graham Stoney <greyham@research.canon.com.au>
Cc: Brian Ford <ford@vss.fsi.com>, linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: 2.5 or 2.4 kernel profiling
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:14:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3A37A048.46E692A0@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20001213121554.B17129@brixi.research.canon.com.au
Graham Stoney wrote:
> This does indeed sound better; the only sticky part I can think of is setting
> the FCC/FEC to keep giving you Rx interrupts even when there are no buffer
> descriptors to put the incoming packets in,
Although I have not yet proven this, I am leaning toward the following.
Allocate a small fixed set of receive buffers (like we used to do)
in the driver and mark them copy-back cached. The received BDs will
always point to thesed buffers. Then, copy-and-sum these into IP
aligned skbuffs. The advantage of Graham's DMA into skbufs isn't that
the driver doesn't copy/sum, it is that later when the IP stack does it
we get burst transfers into cache. So, we get this advantage plus
the IP packet aligned properly for the remainder of the stack. Of
course, the downside of this is the receive buffers are one-time
cached. We blow the cache away to make the TCP benchmark look good,
and the remaining applications suffer. I still have a problem with
this.....making single focused benchmarks look good isn't necessarily
the best for the overall system application.
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-12-13 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012071148420.515-100000@eos>
2000-12-07 18:11 ` 2.5 or 2.4 kernel profiling Brian Ford
2000-12-08 17:41 ` diekema_jon
2000-12-08 18:24 ` Brian Ford
2000-12-11 0:45 ` Graham Stoney
2000-12-11 15:27 ` Brian Ford
2000-12-12 2:36 ` Graham Stoney
2000-12-12 3:26 ` Dan Malek
2000-12-12 7:28 ` Graham Stoney
2000-12-12 16:32 ` Brian Ford
2000-12-12 16:58 ` Dan Malek
2000-12-12 17:17 ` Brian Ford
2000-12-12 21:03 ` Dan Malek
2000-12-13 1:15 ` Graham Stoney
2000-12-13 16:14 ` Dan Malek [this message]
2000-12-13 17:23 ` Arto Vuori
2000-12-13 17:33 ` Dan Malek
2000-12-13 17:55 ` Arto Vuori
2000-12-13 22:08 ` Brian Ford
2000-12-13 22:45 ` Jerry Van Baren
2000-12-13 22:53 ` Dan Malek
2000-12-14 17:29 ` FEC/FCC driver issues Brian Ford
2000-12-14 7:21 ` 2.5 or 2.4 kernel profiling Graham Stoney
2000-12-14 16:58 ` Dan Malek
2000-12-15 0:18 ` Graham Stoney
2000-12-12 15:26 ` Brian Ford
2000-12-12 17:12 ` Jerry Van Baren
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=3A37A048.46E692A0@mvista.com \
--to=dan@mvista.com \
--cc=ford@vss.fsi.com \
--cc=greyham@research.canon.com.au \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).