From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:19:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1158592789.6069.115.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060918.070905.98863400.davem@davemloft.net> <200609181629.53949.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , master@sectorb.msk.ru, hawk@diku.dk, harry@atmos.washington.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:10910 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751717AbWIRO5A (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:57:00 -0400 To: Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <200609181629.53949.ak@suse.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Ar Llu, 2006-09-18 am 16:29 +0200, ysgrifennodd Andi Kleen: > The only delay this would add would be the queueing time from the NIC > to the softirq. Do you really think that is that bad? If you are trying to do things like network record/playback then you want the minimal delay. There's a reason the original timestamp code supported the hardware setting the timestamp itself - we actually had a separare set of logic on a board that was doing the timestamping by watching the IRQ line of the NIC chip. Alan