Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-13 Thread David Rees
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:27:10AM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote: > > It's getting very lonely testing this stuff. It would be useful if > someone else could help out - at least running the bw_tcp tests. It's > pretty simple: > > bw_tcp -s ; bw_tcp 0 OK, here's my bw_tcp results on a K6-2

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-13 Thread Andrew Morton
"David S. Miller" wrote: > > Andrew Morton writes: > > Changing the memory copy function did make some difference > > in my setup. But the performance drop on send(8k) is only approx 10%, > > partly because I changed the way I'm testing it - `cyclesoak' is > > now penalised more heavily by

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-13 Thread Andrew Morton
"David S. Miller" wrote: Andrew Morton writes: Changing the memory copy function did make some difference in my setup. But the performance drop on send(8k) is only approx 10%, partly because I changed the way I'm testing it - `cyclesoak' is now penalised more heavily by cache

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-13 Thread David Rees
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:27:10AM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote: It's getting very lonely testing this stuff. It would be useful if someone else could help out - at least running the bw_tcp tests. It's pretty simple: bw_tcp -s ; bw_tcp 0 OK, here's my bw_tcp results on a K6-2 450. I

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-12 Thread David S. Miller
Andrew Morton writes: > Changing the memory copy function did make some difference > in my setup. But the performance drop on send(8k) is only approx 10%, > partly because I changed the way I'm testing it - `cyclesoak' is > now penalised more heavily by cache misses, and amount of cache >

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-12 Thread David S. Miller
Andrew Morton writes: Changing the memory copy function did make some difference in my setup. But the performance drop on send(8k) is only approx 10%, partly because I changed the way I'm testing it - `cyclesoak' is now penalised more heavily by cache misses, and amount of cache

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-11 Thread Andrew Morton
"David S. Miller" wrote: > > As usual: > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2p2-1.diff.gz > > It's updated to be against the latest (2.4.2-pre2) and I've removed > the non-zerocopy related fixes from the patch (because I've sent them > under seperate cover to

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-11 Thread Andrew Morton
"David S. Miller" wrote: As usual: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2p2-1.diff.gz It's updated to be against the latest (2.4.2-pre2) and I've removed the non-zerocopy related fixes from the patch (because I've sent them under seperate cover to Linus).

[UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-09 Thread David S. Miller
As usual: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2p2-1.diff.gz It's updated to be against the latest (2.4.2-pre2) and I've removed the non-zerocopy related fixes from the patch (because I've sent them under seperate cover to Linus). Enjoy. As usual, I am very

[UPDATE] zerocopy patch against 2.4.2-pre2

2001-02-09 Thread David S. Miller
As usual: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2p2-1.diff.gz It's updated to be against the latest (2.4.2-pre2) and I've removed the non-zerocopy related fixes from the patch (because I've sent them under seperate cover to Linus). Enjoy. As usual, I am very