On Friday 22 February 2008 09:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 19:00 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Some oprofile results obtained while using tbench on a 2x2 cpu machine
> > were very surprising.
> >
> > For example, loopback_xmit() function was using high number of cpu
> > cycles
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:00:03 +0100 Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#ifndef cache_line_size
> +#define cache_line_size()L1_CACHE_BYTES
> +#endif
argh, you made me look.
Really cache_line_size() should be implemented in include/linux/cache.h.
Then we tromp the stupid private implem
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 19:00 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Some oprofile results obtained while using tbench on a 2x2 cpu machine
> were very surprising.
>
> For example, loopback_xmit() function was using high number of cpu
> cycles to perform the statistic updates, supposed to be real cheap
> s
Some oprofile results obtained while using tbench on a 2x2 cpu machine
were very surprising.
For example, loopback_xmit() function was using high number of cpu
cycles to perform
the statistic updates, supposed to be real cheap since they use percpu data
pcpu_lstats = netdev_priv(dev);