[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1187907903.4279.28.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:25:03 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: rick.jones2@...com, krkumar2@...ibm.com, gaagaan@...il.com,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
jagana@...ibm.com, jeff@...zik.org, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
kaber@...sh.net, mcarlson@...adcom.com, mchan@...adcom.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
rdreier@...co.com, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, sri@...ibm.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
xma@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9 Rev3] Implement batching skb API and support in
IPoIB
On Thu, 2007-23-08 at 18:04 -0400, jamal wrote:
> The litmus test is the same as any change that is supposed to improve
> net performance - it has to demonstrate it is not intrusive and that it
> improves (consistently) performance. The standard metrics are
> {throughput, cpu-utilization, latency} i.e as long as one improves and
> others remain zero, it would make sense. Yes, i am religious for
> batching after all the invested sweat (and i continue to work on it
> hoping to demystify) - the theory makes a lot of sense.
Before someone jumps and strangles me ;-> By "litmus test" i meant as
applied to batching. [TSO already passed - iirc, it has been
demostranted to really not add much to throughput (cant improve much
over closeness to wire speed) but improve CPU utilization].
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists