On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:52:29AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > It is too bad that we have to take the spinlock for every time stamped > > packet, but it is the hardware's fault for not providing a 64 bit wide > > nanosecond time register. > > > > Yes, probably. Are you sure a workaround is not possible, using a > seqlock for synchronization of threads, and two hardware reads ?
Many things are possible... > Or maybe it doesnt matter at all :) Yes, I think it not worth the effort. In general, the whole time stamping thing is at odds with network throughput. Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Systems Optimization Self Assessment Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/ _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
