Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 23:07:22 +0300 (EEST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>, hutton@isi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: throughtput measurements for fast ethernet Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970516230149.14418A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199705161601.SAA01821@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Christoph Kukulies wrote: > > From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> > > Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 08:48:13 +0200 (MEST) > > > > Someone told me some time ago when I was seeking for similar > > figures (Garret ?) that FreeBSD can saturate 10/100 Mbit with > > appropriate CPU power. The only interesting question would be CPU > > utilization during transfer compared to other L-word OSs. > > > > I'd be more interested in seeing FreeBSD get low latencies, but as > > long as you guys are bzero()'ing a structure on the stack of > > tcp_input() for every packet that arrives just for T/TCP's sake, it > > isn't going to happen. > > Interesting. > > a) I don't know how efficient the bzero() is (inline? #idef KERNEL?) > over a statementwise zeroing of a 20 byte structure and why this. > I tried it (actrually more). After replacing the bzeroing of the tcp options and all the bzero(&taop,...) in tcp_input.c, tcp_output.c and tcp_usrreq.c with macros doing by-component zeroing I see 4-5% of improvement in both TCP latency and throughput on my P75. But it is a kind of hack. I can post the diffs if anyone is interested. Sander > > -- > Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970516230149.14418A-100000>