From: Josh MacDonald <jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10.
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:39:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010928113914.B23101@helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200109281704.VAA04444@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0109281420180.26495-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0109281420180.26495-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:21:07PM -0300
Quoting Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br):
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
>
> > Please, explain who exactly obtains an advantage of looping.
> > net_rx_action()? Do you see drops in backlog?
>
> > net_tx_action()? It does not look critical.
>
> Then how would you explain the 10% speed difference
> Ben and others have seen with gigabit ethernet ?
Could this possibly be due to I-cache improvements? If the same
interrupt handling code is being run 10 times at once you should
expect an improvement of that kind.
-josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-28 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-26 16:44 [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10 Ingo Molnar
2001-09-26 17:48 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-09-26 18:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-26 18:55 ` Russell King
2001-09-26 19:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-27 23:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 3:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 7:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 15:17 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 7:18 ` [patch] softirq-2.4.10-B2 Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 15:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 18:36 ` Simon Kirby
2001-09-28 18:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 19:31 ` kuznet
2001-09-28 16:18 ` [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10 kuznet
2001-09-28 16:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 17:04 ` kuznet
2001-09-28 17:21 ` Rik van Riel
2001-09-28 17:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 17:41 ` kuznet
2001-09-28 17:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 18:39 ` Josh MacDonald [this message]
2001-09-28 17:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 17:56 ` kuznet
2001-09-28 18:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 19:23 ` kuznet
2001-09-28 19:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-29 16:35 ` kuznet
2001-09-30 9:37 ` Kai Henningsen
2001-09-30 9:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 19:39 ` kuznet
2001-09-28 20:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 18:51 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2001-09-28 16:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 16:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 16:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 16:35 ` [patch] softirq-2.4.10-B3 Ingo Molnar
2001-09-29 0:40 ` J . A . Magallon
2001-09-29 11:03 ` [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10 Rusty Russell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-27 23:29 Oleg Nesterov
2001-09-28 0:03 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-28 6:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-09-28 2:50 Oleg Nesterov
2001-09-28 7:56 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20010928113914.B23101@helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU \
--to=jmacd@cs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox