From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:59:33 +0000 Message-ID: <20090126075932.GA4183@ff.dom.local> References: <20090119061420.GB12946@1wt.eu> <20090118.221908.47032075.davem@davemloft.net> <20090119101924.GA1881@gondor.apana.org.au> <20090119.125941.240930524.davem@davemloft.net> <20090125210325.GA31227@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, zbr@ioremap.net, dada1@cosmosbay.com, ben@zeus.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.188]:56268 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317AbZAZH7k (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:59:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090125210325.GA31227@1wt.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:03:25PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: ... > The memory allocation clearly is the culprit here. I'll try Jarek's > patch which reduces memory allocation to see if that changes something, > as I'm sure we can do fairly better, given how it behaves with limited > sessions. I think you are right, but I wonder if it's not better to wait with more profiling until this splicing is really redone. Regards, Jarek P.