From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:39:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:38:59 -0400 Received: from helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU ([128.32.131.251]:58046 "EHLO helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:38:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:39:14 -0700 From: Josh MacDonald To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10. Message-ID: <20010928113914.B23101@helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <200109281704.VAA04444@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:21:07PM -0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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