I just read the first page of the paper so far, but it sounds like it is heading in a good direction. It would be interesting to apply also to home access-point/switches, especially since they are now pushing 1 Gb/sec over the air. I will put it on my very interesting stack.
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:49pm, "Wes Felter" <[email protected]> said: > On 10/10/14, 7:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > The best approach to dealing with "locking overhead" is to stop thinking > > that if locks are good, more locking (finer grained locking) is better. > > OS designers (and Linux designers in particular) are still putting in > > way too much locking. I deal with this in my day job (we support > > systems with very large numbers of cpus and because of the "fine > > grained" locking obsession, the parallelized capacity is limited). If > > you do a thoughtful design of your network code, you don't need lots of > > locking - because TCP/IP streams don't have to interact much - they are > > quite independent. But instead OS designers spend all their time > > thinking about doing "one thing at a time". > > The IX project looks like a promising step in that direction, although > it still doesn't support sub-core granularity like Linux does. > > https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/presentation/belay > > -- > Wes Felter > IBM Research - Austin > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
