On Tuesday 17 October 2006 06:18, John Heffner wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch limits the amount of time you will defer sending a TSO segment
to less than two clock ticks, or the time between two
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:37:36 +0200
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 06:18, John Heffner wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch limits the amount of time you will defer
From: John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:22:11 -0400
That's actually how I originally coded it. :) But then it occurred to
me that if you've already been waiting for a full clock tick, the
marginal CPU savings of waiting longer will not be great. Which is why
I
David Miller wrote:
From: John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:18:33 -0400
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch limits the amount of time you will defer sending a TSO segment
to less than two
The original message didn't show up on the list. I'm assuming it's
because the filters didn't like the attached postscript. I posted PDFs of
the figures on the web:
http://www.psc.edu/~jheffner/tmp/a.pdf
http://www.psc.edu/~jheffner/tmp/b.pdf
http://www.psc.edu/~jheffner/tmp/c.pdf
-John
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original message didn't show up on the list. I'm assuming it's
because the filters didn't like the attached postscript. I posted PDFs of
the figures on the web:
http://www.psc.edu/~jheffner/tmp/a.pdf
From: John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:18:33 -0400
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch limits the amount of time you will defer sending a TSO segment
to less than two clock ticks, or
