lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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