Andi Kleen wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:49:10AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> 
>>Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>>>>Those banks really want to crank down on latency - to the point they 
>>>>start disabling interrupt coalescing.  I bet they'd toss anything out 
>>>>they could to shave another microsecond.
>>>
>>>
>>>This change would actually likely lower their latency.
>>
>>I'm guessing you mean increase their latency?  I agree, it could - 
>>depends entirely on the PPS in production I suspect.
> 
> 
> No, moving the time stamps into the socket decreases latency
> for all packets that don't need time stamps. And they likely 
> have some packets which don't need time stamps too.

Ah, since that part of the discussion wasn't in the quoted text I 
assumed you were talking about the disabling of interrupt coalescing.

rick jones

quoted text
> 
> As a secondary effect if they use a RT kernel it might
> be also beneficial to do the (depending on the platform)
> costly time stamp in the lower priority socket context
> than in the high priority interrupt thread.
> 
> -Andi

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/