Not wanting to appear heretic - but:
is it naive to consider that if RX only works efficiently with
jumbograms enabled, than there is something wrong with the
implementation? What would it be that makes packet fragmentation and
reassembly so immensely more efficient compared with RX packet
handling? Why can TCP fill up a GigE leisurely and RX just gets about
half of it sweating a complete CPU?
As a side question: anybody got an opinion whether rxi_TrimDataBufs()
does a job worth spending a single cycle? Aren't we talking about
saving on a couple dozen buffers each 1.5 kilobytes in length - on
machines which nowadays count memory in gigabytes? How about
allocating a fixed buffer with each packet and leave it with it forever?
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rainer Toebbicke
European Laboratory for Particle Physics(CERN) - Geneva, Switzerland
Phone: +41 22 767 8985 Fax: +41 22 767 7155
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
