Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:20:57 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_var.h Message-ID: <20060618080019.B60374@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <4494FDF5.1070901@errno.com> References: <200606171757.k5HHvahf087725@repoman.freebsd.org> <4494FDF5.1070901@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Sam Leffler wrote: > Andre Oppermann wrote: >> andre 2006-06-17 17:57:36 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> sys/netinet tcp_var.h >> Log: >> Rearrange fields in struct syncache and syncache_head to make them more >> cache line friendly. > > Got any benchmarks to back this up? Or perhaps it was just the smiley > face your cache lines gave you :) That indeed is a good question. From looking at the patch I can see a new lock introduced while there are other people working on reducing locking and locking overhead in our network stack trying different strategies. I hadn't seen a patch or any numbers in this months arch@ or net@ archives (maybe I missed it?). At the current phase of network stack hacking we should take the time to get these kind of changes benchmarked under various loads from different people or at least give them the chance to do so so nobody can complain afterwards. At least if one wants to claim performance improvements. just my 2ct -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060618080019.B60374>