Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:36:32 -0600 | From | yodaiken@fsmlabs ... |
| |
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. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
- 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/
|  |