Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:42:37 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com> Cc: scottl@samsco.org, mav@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, ivoras@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Increasing MAXPHYS Message-ID: <34477.1269290557@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:07:56 -0400." <3c0b01821003221207p4e4eecabqb4f448813bf5a8a8@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <3c0b01821003221207p4e4eecabqb4f448813bf5a8a8@mail.gmail.com>, Alexa nder Sack writes: >Am I going crazy or does this sound a lot like Sun/SVR's stream based >network stack? That is a good and pertinent observation. I did investigate a number of optimizations to the g_up/g_down scheme I eventually adopted, but found none that gained anything justifying the complexity they brought. In some cases, the optimizations used more CPU cycles than the straight g_up/g_down path, but obviously, the circumstances are vastly different with CPUs having 10 times higher clock, multiple cores and SSD disks, so a fresh look at this tradeoff is in order. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34477.1269290557>