Hello. [ Sorry for long delay, there are some problems with mail servers, so I can not access them remotely, so I create mail by hads, hopefully thread will not be broken. ]
>> > Your description makes it sound as if you would take a huge leap, >> > changing all in-kernel code _and_ the userspace interface in a >> > single >> > patch. Am I wrong? Or am I right and would it make sense to >> > extract >> > small incremental steps from your patch similar to those Van did in >> > his non-published work? >> >> My first implementation used existing kernel code and showed small >> performance win - there was binding of the socket to netchannel and >> all >> protocol processing was moved into process context. >Iirc, Van didn't show performance numbers but rather cpu utilization >numbers. And those went down significantly without changing the >userspace interface. At least lca presentation graphs shows exactly different numbers - performance without CPU utilization (but not as his tables). >Did you look at cpu utilization as well? If you did and your numbers >are worse than Vans, he either did something smarter than you or >forged his numbers (quite unlikely). Interesting sentence from political correcteness point of view :) I did both CPU and speed measurements when used socket code [1], and both of them showed small gain, but I only tested 1gbit setup, so they can not be compared with Van's. But even with 1gb I was not satisfied with them, so I started different implementation, which I described in my e-mail to Alexey. 1. speed/cpu measurements of one of the netchannels implementation which used socket code. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/36609/focus=36614 -- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
