On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:15:37 +0100
Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:54:19AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:50:20 +0100
> > Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...] ( cut my boring part )
>
> > > Here are
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:54:19AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:50:20 +0100
> Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] ( cut my boring part )
> > Here are the results classed by speed :
> >
> > /* Sample output on a Pentium-M 600 MHz :
> >
> > Func
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:50:20 +0100
Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 02:11:56PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Oh BTW, I have a newer version with a first approximation of the
> > > cbrt() before the div64_64, which allows us to reduce from
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 02:11:56PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Oh BTW, I have a newer version with a first approximation of the
> > cbrt() before the div64_64, which allows us to reduce from 3 div64
> > to only 2 div64. This results in a version which is twice as fast
> > as th
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:48:26 +0100
Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 07:51:35PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:10:47 -0800
> >
> > > David Miller wrote:
> > > > What about Willy Tarreau's su
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 07:51:35PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:10:47 -0800
>
> > David Miller wrote:
> > > What about Willy Tarreau's supposedly even faster variant?
> > > Or does this incorporate that set of improvements?
>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 07:10:47PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> >From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:07:31 -0800
> >
> >
> >>The basic calculation has to be done in 32 bits to avoid
> >>doing 64 bit divide by 3. The value x is only 22
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:10:47 -0800
> David Miller wrote:
> > What about Willy Tarreau's supposedly even faster variant?
> > Or does this incorporate that set of improvements?
> >
> That's what this is:
> x = (2 * x + (uint32_t)div64_64(a, (uint
David Miller wrote:
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:07:31 -0800
The basic calculation has to be done in 32 bits to avoid
doing 64 bit divide by 3. The value x is only 22bits max
so only need full 64 bits only for x^2.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[E
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:07:31 -0800
> The basic calculation has to be done in 32 bits to avoid
> doing 64 bit divide by 3. The value x is only 22bits max
> so only need full 64 bits only for x^2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The basic calculation has to be done in 32 bits to avoid
doing 64 bit divide by 3. The value x is only 22bits max
so only need full 64 bits only for x^2.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_cubic.c |8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
11 matches
Mail list logo