lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, David S. Miller wrote:

> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 04:44:53 -0400
> From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>
>
> Does anyone think that allocating skbs during system idle time
> would be useful?
>
> I really don't like these sorts of things, because it makes an
> assumption as to what memory is about to be used for.
>
> What if you were to preallocate skbs while idle, then the next thing
> which happens is some userland program walks over a 2gb dataset and
> no network activity happens at all.
>

The FF code of the tulip does have skb recycling code.
And i belive Jes' acenic code does or did at some point.
Robert Olson and I were thinking of taking out that code out of the
tulip for reasons such as you talk about (and the thought maybe that
the per-CPU slab might have obsoleted that requirement). We did some tests
with 2.4.0-test7 and were suprised to observe that at high rate of input
packets, it still made as a big a difference as 7000 packets per second
;-> i.e we got 7Kpps more by using skb recycling.

Dave, would a scheme with an aging of the skbs in the recycle queue
and an upper bound of the number of packets sitting on the queue be
acceptable?
Maybe ANK can make a comment as well.
Robert and I plan to play with such a scheme for a long time under many
different scenarios and come with numbers (throughput etc) instead of
"here's a patch and intuitively it makes sense".
This is really a 2.5 thing if acceptable.

cheers,
jamal

PS:- OLS patch coming soon; a few more tests (as time permits);->

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.089 / U:5.572 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site