From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nivedita Singhvi Subject: Re: [RFC] netif_rx: receive path optimization Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:30:25 -0800 Message-ID: <424C9621.70606@us.ibm.com> References: <20050330132815.605c17d0@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050331120410.7effa94d@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <1112303431.1073.67.camel@jzny.localdomain> <424C6A98.1070509@hp.com> <1112305084.1073.94.camel@jzny.localdomain> <424C7CDC.8050801@hp.com> <424C81B8.6090709@us.ibm.com> <424C8790.6060203@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev Return-path: To: Rick Jones In-Reply-To: <424C8790.6060203@hp.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Rick Jones wrote: > Well, I'm in an email discussion with someone who seems to bump their > TCP windows quite large, and disable timestamps... Ah, an oldie but a goodie :), disabling route inheritance as a result, bumping up their default rto back to 300ms, just so many things that could go wrong there... > BTW what is the real world purpose of having the multiple CPU affinity > of NIC interrupts? I have to admit it seems rather alien to me. (In > the context of no onboard NIC smarts being involved that is) Featuritis Bloatis ;). It's a marketing requirement :). thanks, Nivedita