Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Hi Sridhar, Sridhar Samudrala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 11:14:19 PM: > > @@ -1566,7 +1605,7 @@ gso: > > /* reset queue_mapping to zero */ > > skb->queue_mapping = 0; > > rc = q->enqueue(skb, q); > > - qdisc_run(dev); > > + qdisc_run(dev,

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 12:02 +0530, Krishna Kumar wrote: > Changes in dev.c to support batching : add dev_add_skb_to_blist, > register_netdev recognizes batch aware drivers, and net_tx_action is > the sole user of batching. > > Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > dev.c | 77

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

(My Notes crashed when I hit the Send button, so not sure if this went out). __ Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 04:50:37 PM: > 32 bytes? I count 16, - 4 for the pointer, so its 12 bytes of waste. > If you'd use it for gso_skb it would come down to 8 bytes

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Krishna Kumar2 wrote: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 04:50:37 PM: 32 bytes? I count 16, - 4 for the pointer, so its 12 bytes of waste. If you'd use it for gso_skb it would come down to 8 bytes. struct net_device is a pig already, and there are better ways to reduce t

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 04:50:37 PM: > 32 bytes? I count 16, - 4 for the pointer, so its 12 bytes of waste. > If you'd use it for gso_skb it would come down to 8 bytes. struct > net_device is a pig already, and there are better ways to reduce this > than starting to

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007: > I can't really argue about the numbers, but it seems to me that only > devices which *usually* have a sufficient queue length will support > this, and anyone setting the queue length of a gbit device to <16 is > begging for trouble anyway.

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Krishna Kumar2 wrote: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 04:50:37 PM Is there any downside in using batching with smaller queue sizes? I think there is, but as yet I don't have any data (and 16 is probably higher than reqd) to show it. If the queue size is very small

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Hi Patrick, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 04:50:37 PM: > > I have a TODO comment in net-sysfs.c which is to catch this case. > > > > I noticed that. Still wondering why it is important at all though. I saw another mail of yours on the marc list on this same topic (which

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Krishna Kumar2 wrote: Hi Patrick, Thanks for your comments. Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 03:34:30 PM: The queue length can be changed through multiple interfaces, if that really is important you need to catch these cases too. I have a TODO comment in net-s

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Hi Patrick, Thanks for your comments. Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2007 03:34:30 PM: > The queue length can be changed through multiple interfaces, if that > really is important you need to catch these cases too. I have a TODO comment in net-sysfs.c which is to catch this

Re: [PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Krishna Kumar wrote: > @@ -3397,6 +3440,28 @@ int register_netdevice(struct net_device > } > } > > + if (dev->features & NETIF_F_BATCH_SKBS) { > + if (!dev->hard_start_xmit_batch || > + dev->tx_queue_len < MIN_QUEUE_LEN_BATCH) { > +

[PATCH 03/10] dev.c changes.

Changes in dev.c to support batching : add dev_add_skb_to_blist, register_netdev recognizes batch aware drivers, and net_tx_action is the sole user of batching. Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- dev.c | 77 +++--- 1