Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:52:53 +1000 | From | Lincoln Dale <> | Subject | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) |
| |
At 09:18 AM 14/06/2003 +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > Not really... one retransmit and the TCP header size grows > > due to the SACK options. > >OK scratch that idea.
why not have a performance option that is a tradeoff between optimum payload size versus efficiency.
unless i misunderstand the problem, you can certainly pad the TCP options with NOPs ...
> > I find it truly bletcherous what you're trying to do here. > >I think so too, but its hard to ignore ~100Mbit/sec in performance.
another option is for the write() path is for instantant-send TCP sockets to delay the copy_from_user() until the IP+TCP header size is known. i wouldn't expect the net folks to like that, however ..
cheers,
lincoln.
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |