login
Header Space

 
 

Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jerry Chu <hkchu@...>, <davem@...>, <johnwheffner@...>, <rick.jones2@...>, <netdev@...>
Date: Friday, April 25, 2008 - 3:06 am

[fixed cc and subject]

Jerry Chu wrote:

sendmsg should just be a little smarter on when to block depending on
the state of the interface. There is already some minor code for tnat
as you'll have noted. Then the bursts would be much less of a problem.

We already had this discussion recently together with better behaviour
on bounding.

The only big problem then would be if there are more submitting threads
than packets in the TX queue, but I would consider that unlikely for
GB+ NICs at least (might be an issue for older designs with smaller queues)


It doesn't need to be. Unlike a true network it is very cheap here
to do direct feedback.


I think that's a great start, but probably not enough.

-Andi



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning, Andi Kleen, (Fri Apr 25, 3:06 am)
Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning, David Miller, (Fri Apr 25, 3:28 am)
Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning, Andi Kleen, (Fri Apr 25, 3:48 am)
speck-geostationary