From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure. Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080921.021702.37632261.davem@davemloft.net> References: <48D6104B.9040304@superbug.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, dwalker@mvista.com, arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, steffen.klassert@secunet.com To: James@superbug.co.uk Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:46633 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750733AbYIUJRP (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:17:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48D6104B.9040304@superbug.co.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: James Courtier-Dutton Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:13:47 +0100 > Why do you have to preserve packet ordering? > TCP/IP does not preserve packet ordering across the network. Yes, but we should preserve per-flow ordering as much as possible within the local system for optimal performance. Things fall apart completely, even with TCP, once you reorder more than 2 or 3 packets deep. > Sharing the sliding window between CPUs might be interesting! Again, Steffen's patches take care of this issue.