Bjorn Wesen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > > But for the hardware I'm running this on, a checksum + copy takes at least
> > > twice the time as a checksum (simple - read vs read/write). And this is
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > No, not at all. With memory-to-memory copy, you are I/O bound. With any
> > CPU that runs faster than memory access (anything faster than a
> > 486-DX/66), you get the checksumming for free if the code is properly
> > written, which Linux's checksum while copy sees to be.

> If your CPU needs to read 100 MByte and then write it back to ram, it does
> take twice the time as just reading it. 

no, Richard is right - on modern cpus the additional writes don't slow
you down that much (eg on pii - only ~7% for fullsized eth frames).

TIME-N+S   TIME32   TIME33 TIME1480 TIMEXXXX   CKSUM FUNCTION ( rdtsc_overhead=2  null=-1 )
   20320     8205     8987    17502    18492 : 51252 csum_partial_686as1s
   22109     9978    13303    18693    25684 : 51252 csum_partial_copy_generic_686as2
   17609    12194    12748    10207    22893 :     0 kernel_memcpy686as2


> Fact: our HW, while sending TCP on a 100 mbit/s ethernet, spends 70% of
> the time in csum_partial_copy. I'd be surprised if the performance of the
> transfers wouldn't go up quite alot if that call was eliminated.

what hw is that?


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