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 13:32:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:32:30 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.107] ([195.223.140.107]:60405 "EHLO athlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:32:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 19:31:47 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Rik van Riel Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, mingo@elte.hu, torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, bcrl@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10. Message-ID: <20010928193147.R24922@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <200109281704.VAA04444@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:21:07PM -0300 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:21:07PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > Then how would you explain the 10% speed difference > Ben and others have seen with gigabit ethernet ? partly because of the unwakeup logic, I've no problem with it, this is why I asked to measure how much of the 10% improvement cames from the unwakeup/ksoftirqd-deschedule logic, I was just curious about that. Andrea