On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> In the non-LRP case, the percentage drop in interrupt overhead
> is ~10% (as has been observed by others). THis makes sense,
> too, if you consider that NETISR driving of receives means
> less time in interrupt processing. If we multiply the 15%
> (1
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> What probably should be done, if you have time, is to add a bit of
> profiling to your patch to find out how it helps most. I'm curious how
> many times it ends up looping, and also why it is looping (whether this is
> due to receive or transmit.) I think knowing this in
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> The one thing I _would_ add -- though I'm waiting for it to
> be a problem before doing it -- is to limit the total number
> of packets processed per interrupt by keeping a running count.
>
> You would have to be _AMAZINGLY_ loaded to hit this, though;
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> Hm, true, I guess the improvement is respectable. My thought is mostly
> that I'm not sure how much it's extending the performance range of a
> system; testing with more varied packet loads as suggested by Alfred would
> help tell us the answer to this.
I didn't respond
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> One issue to be careful of here is that the removal of the
> tcptmpl actually causes a performance hit that wasn't there
> in the 4.3 code. My original complaint about tcptmpl taking
> up 256 instead of 60 bytes stands, but
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> Well, I've been watching everyone argue about the value of interrupt
> coalescing in the net drivers, so I decided to port terry's patch to 4.4 &
> -current to see what the results are.
Thanks!
> The network is 100mbps, switched. To simulate load, I used a syn flooder
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > The network is 100mbps, switched. To simulate load, I used a syn flooder
> > aimed at an unused port. icmp/rst response limiting was enabled.
>
> Actually, you might want to leave that on, it will generate more load.
I considered leaving it on,
* Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011012 01:30] wrote:
>
> Well, I've been watching everyone argue about the value of interrupt
> coalescing in the net drivers, so I decided to port terry's patch to 4.4 &
> -current to see what the results are. The patch included applies cleanly
> to 4.4's
Well, I've been watching everyone argue about the value of interrupt
coalescing in the net drivers, so I decided to port terry's patch to 4.4 &
-current to see what the results are. The patch included applies cleanly
to 4.4's if_dc, and will apply to -current with a one line change.
Whitespace i
