From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ariane Keller Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] netem: trace enhancement Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:54:29 +0100 Message-ID: <47559455.1080009@ee.ethz.ch> References: <20071120231131.oqn4s5eda84k4csw@email.ee.ethz.ch> <474C2246.50205@ee.ethz.ch> <20071129134554.5c25a891@freepuppy.rosehill> <474F3719.30101@trash.net> <47503971.9080509@ee.ethz.ch> <4753B423.7030000@trash.net> <4753C874.80703@ee.ethz.ch> <47543E65.4060303@trash.net> <47544B1F.1010902@candelatech.com> <20071204154535.4eu35nfe9wks8kgg@email.ee.ethz.ch> <47559119.6070803@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ariane Keller , Patrick McHardy , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, Rainer Baumann To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([129.132.2.219]:34377 "EHLO smtp.ee.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753727AbXLDRyb (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:54:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47559119.6070803@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I thought about that as well, but in my opinion this does not help much. It's the same as before: in average every 10ms a new buffer needs to be filled. Ben Greear wrote: > Ariane Keller wrote: >> >> Increasing the cache size to say 32k for each buffer would be no problem. >> Is this enough? > Maybe just a variable length list of 4k buffers chained together? Its > usually easier > to get 4k chunks of memory than 32k chunks, especially under high > network load, > and if you go ahead an make it arbitrary length, then each user can > determine how many > they want to have queued... > > Thanks, > Ben > >