David S. Miller a écrit :
I agree with the analysis, but I truly hate knobs. Every new
one we add means it's even more true that you need to be a wizard
to get a Linux box performing optimally.
[rant mode]
Well, I suspect this is the reason why various hash tables (IP route cache,
TCP
This patch contains an attempt to properly build hostap.o without
#incude'ing C files.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/net/wireless/hostap/Makefile |3
drivers/net/wireless/hostap/hostap.h | 37 +++
On Fri, 2005-02-12 at 11:04 -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:32:37PM -0500, jamal wrote:
[..]
We've already been down this path before. How and where to prefetch
is quite dependent on the CPU implementation and workload.
[..]
At the time you did this, I read the
On Fri, 2005-02-12 at 16:53 -0800, Ronciak, John wrote:
In this combination of hardware and in this forwarding test
copybreak is bad but prefetching helps.
e1000 vanilla 1150 kpps
e1000 6.2.151084
e1000
On Fri, 2005-02-12 at 20:04 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
We don't even know the _nature_ of the cases where the e1000 prefetches
might want to be disabled by a platform. It's therefore impossible
for us to design any kind of reasonable interface or runtime test.
All evidence shows the
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 02:25 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Note that on a router (ie most packets are not locally delivered), copybreak
is useless and expensive.
But if most packets are locally delivered (on local TCP or UDP queues), then
copybreak is a win because less memory is taken by not
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 09:39 -0500, jamal wrote:
I am going to go and install Linux (running something else at the
moment) on this one piece of hardware that i happen to know was
problematic and try to test like the way Robert did. That will be my
good deed of the day ;-
I suppose no good
Al Boldi wrote:
Here specifically, ip/ifconfig is implemented upside-down requiring a
link/dev to exist for an address to be defined, in effect containing layer 3
inside layer 2, when an address should be allowed to be defined w/o a
link/dev much like an app is allowed to be defined w/o an
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 12:00 -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 09:20:52AM -0500, jamal wrote:
Ok, so you seem to be saying again that for case #b above, there is no
harm in issuing the prefetch late since the CPU wont issue a second
fetch for the address?
Right.
Ben Greear wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
Here specifically, ip/ifconfig is implemented upside-down requiring a
link/dev to exist for an address to be defined, in effect containing
layer 3 inside layer 2, when an address should be allowed to be defined
w/o a link/dev much like an app is allowed
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 02:37:59PM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 12:00 -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 09:20:52AM -0500, jamal wrote:
Ok, so you seem to be saying again that for case #b above, there is no
harm in issuing the prefetch late since the CPU
11 matches
Mail list logo
