Hi,
On 07/10/2015 05:43 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:32:17 +0100
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:37:48PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Hemminger
>>>
>>> For applications that use m->userdata the initialization can
>>> be a si
On 07/10/2015 05:43 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:32:17 +0100
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:37:48PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Hemminger
>>>
>>> For applications that use m->userdata the initialization can
>>> be a signfic
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:37:48PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger
>
> For applications that use m->userdata the initialization can
> be a signficant (10%) performance penalty.
>
> Rather than taking the cache penalty of initializing userdata
> in the receive handling,
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:32:17 +0100
Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:37:48PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger
> >
> > For applications that use m->userdata the initialization can
> > be a signficant (10%) performance penalty.
> >
> > Rather than ta
From: Stephen Hemminger
For applications that use m->userdata the initialization can
be a signficant (10%) performance penalty.
Rather than taking the cache penalty of initializing userdata
in the receive handling, do it in the place where mbuf is
already cache hot and being setup.
Signed-off-b
5 matches
Mail list logo