Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:06:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:06:29 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:10412 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:06:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3DB6E56D.8D930A1D@us.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:07:41 -0700 From: Nivedita Singhvi X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: root@chaos.analogic.com CC: bert hubert , Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk , "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com, Kernel mailing list Subject: Re: [RESEND] tuning linux for high network performance? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 964 Lines: 25 "Richard B. Johnson" wrote: > No. It's done over each word (short int) and the actual summation > takes place during the address calculation of the next word. This > gets you a checksum that is practically free. Yep, sorry, word, not byte. My bad. The cost is in the fact that this whole process involves loading each word of the data stream into a register. Which is why I also used to consider the checksum cost as negligible. > A 400 MHz ix86 CPU will checksum/copy at 685 megabytes per second. > It will copy at 1,549 megabytes per second. Those are megaBYTES! But then why the difference in the checksum/copy and copy? Are you saying the checksum is not costing you 864 megabytes a second?? thanks, Nivedita - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/