[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:26:08PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> One of the things we need to measure still is the latency. The scheme
> currently used with dynamically adjusting the mitigation parameters might
> not affect latency much -- simply because the adjustement is based on the
> load. We still have to prove this. The theory is:
> Under a lot of congestion, you delay longer because the layers above
> you are congested as gauged from a feedback; and under low congestion, you
> should theoretically adjust all the way down to 1 interupt/packet. Under
> heavy load, your latency is already screwed anyways because of large
> backlog queue; this is regardless of mitigation.

Or maybe the extra delay in congested circumstances will cause more
timeouts and that's precisely when you need to improve latency?

Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.070 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site