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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.051 / U:8.064 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site