Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270764AbTGNUXX (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:23:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270774AbTGNUOK (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:14:10 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:7108 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270808AbTGNULB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:11:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Alan Shih: "TCP IP Offloading Interface" From: Alan Cox To: Jeff Garzik Cc: David griego , alan@storlinksemi.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <3F130C75.3010603@pobox.com> References: <3F130C75.3010603@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1058214188.606.139.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:23:09 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 904 Lines: 19 On Llu, 2003-07-14 at 21:03, Jeff Garzik wrote: > If the host CPU is a bottleneck after large-send and checksums have been > offloaded, then logically you aren't getting any work done _anyway_. > You have to interface with the net stack at some point, in which case > you incur a fixed cost, for socket handling, TCP exception handling, etc. > > Maybe somebody needs to be looking into AMP (asymmetric > multiprocessing), too. There isnt currently any evidence it buy you anything, although HT may change that equation a bit. Its still the same RAM bandwidth and you've not really gotten rid of most of the socket handling/event/wakeup overhead either. - 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/