From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Speed-up pfifo_fast lookup using a bitmap
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:27:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090813112715.GA7010@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFD762AF41.E7A6EE8D-ON65257611.00389F3C-65257611.003AC5BB@in.ibm.com>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 04:11:57PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> > Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
> >
> > > but the test numbers came a little less, since it takes a few more
> > > memory references on enqueue/dequeue.
> >
> > If it's exactly "a little less" I'd consider keeping it private yet...
>
> Sounds reasonable. To quantify that, I will test again for a longer
> run and report the difference.
Yes, more numbers would be appreciated.
>
> > Btw, I wonder how much gain of your previous (_CAN_BYPASS) patch is
> > saved after this change...
>
> The tests are on the latest tree which contains CAN_BYPASS. So a
> single netperf process running this change will get no advantage
> since this enqueue/dequeue never happens unless the NIC is slow.
> But for multiple processes, it should help.
I mean: since the previous patch saved ~2% on omitting enqueue/dequeue,
and now enqueue/dequeue is ~2% faster, is it still worth to omit this?
Regards,
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-13 11:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-13 7:28 [PATCH] Speed-up pfifo_fast lookup using a bitmap Krishna Kumar
2009-08-13 10:08 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-08-13 10:41 ` Krishna Kumar2
2009-08-13 11:27 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-08-14 8:19 Krishna Kumar
2009-08-14 11:01 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-08-14 13:24 Krishna Kumar
2009-08-14 21:36 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-08-18 2:03 ` David Miller
2009-08-18 16:46 ` Krishna Kumar2
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=20090813112715.GA7010@ff.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=krkumar2@in.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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).