From: Amir Noam <amir.noam@intel.com>
To: "Per Hedeland" <per@hedeland.org>
Cc: <bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH] [bonding 2.4] Add balance-xor-ip bonding mode
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:50:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200401111650.24305.amir.noam@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991D2@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>
On Thursday 08 January 2004 06:43 pm, Per Hedeland wrote:
> Amir Noam <amir.noam@intel.com> wrote:
> >I don't like this. The reason we give different tx function
> > pointers to dev->hard_start_xmit in different bonding mode is to
> > make the tx path as fast as possible. Otherwise we might as well
> > use a single tx function that chooses its exact operation based
> > on the bonding mode.
> >
> >It might be better to have some code duplication if it results in
> >faster tx, but I'm not sure what's the optimal solution in this
> > case.
>
> Well, I don't really have an opinion since I don't have a good idea
> about the cost of a function call relative to "everything else"
> that is happening here. I don't see a way to do "limited"
> duplication without using function calls though, but I'm quite
> happy to make it two entirely separate functions for MAC vs IP.
> Please advise.
A possible way to have "limited" duplication would be to have two
seperate xmit functions, that call an inline function for the shared
code. This might be good enough, performance-wise, while avoiding
some code duplication.
But, like I've said, I'm not sure wout the best solution is. I'd like
to hear what Jay (and others) thinks about it.
--
Amir
next parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-11 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991D2@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>
2004-01-11 14:50 ` Amir Noam [this message]
2004-01-11 21:45 ` [Bonding-devel] [PATCH] [bonding 2.4] Add balance-xor-ip bonding mode Per Hedeland
2004-01-24 12:33 ` [PATCH] [bonding 2.4] Fixes for balance-xor and balance-rr Per Hedeland
[not found] <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991D0@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>
2004-01-08 15:33 ` [Bonding-devel] [PATCH] [bonding 2.4] Add balance-xor-ip bonding mode Amir Noam
2004-01-08 16:43 ` Per Hedeland
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=200401111650.24305.amir.noam@intel.com \
--to=amir.noam@intel.com \
--cc=bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=per@hedeland.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).