On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Jamal Hadi <hadi@shell.cyberus.ca> > Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 07:38:44 -0400 (EDT) > > Yes, you have a nice setup and thats why you should test all the patches > DaveM is posting. Dave, Paul is running in a real ISP environment i think > he is very valuable in helping to test these patches and collect > any says that might be needed. Now watch him disapear ;-> > > If he doesn't test my patches he isn't very useful, > so we'll see :-) Ok foo the pressure in on you now ;-> You wanna see things fixed then run the damn tests or stop bitching ;-> > You're going to prefetch "nextrth" when the first thing we're > going to access is "&nextrth->fl"? :-) > > It only makes sense to prefetch the 'fl' member of the first hash > chain entry and that's what I've done in my tree. This points out > that it would make sense to put the struct flowi up into the dst > entry. yes moving the flowi up makes more sense. I found in my tests with a ethernet driver that prefetching the _next_ dma descriptor gave better numbers than prefetching the current one but i didnt spend too much time. I am going to revisit this. Good thought on rearranging the structure, may help with the descriptors as well. cheers, jamal - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
