From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:34:38 -0700
> It could be a compile-time option, and even if compiled in, it should
> only be an if branch on
> a pointer. Is there any noticeable performance hit for an if check if
> you wrap it with unlikely?
It's "just an if te
David Miller wrote:
From: Robert Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:16:05 +0200
My first instinct is to avoid the hook in general code and pktgen let spin
to only affect testing.
Mine too.
Why make everyone in the world make that check in netif_wake_queue(),
or wh
Robert Olsson wrote:
Ben Greear writes:
> I'm planning to re-merge my long-lost pktgen branch with the kernel
> tree's pktgen.
>
> I believe the main difference is that my out-of-tree pktgen does not do the
> busy-spin, but waits on a queue for the net-device to wake it's tx-queue
> when
From: Robert Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:16:05 +0200
> My first instinct is to avoid the hook in general code and pktgen let spin
> to only affect testing.
Mine too.
Why make everyone in the world make that check in netif_wake_queue(),
or wherever, when %99.99
Ben Greear writes:
> I'm planning to re-merge my long-lost pktgen branch with the kernel
> tree's pktgen.
>
> I believe the main difference is that my out-of-tree pktgen does not do the
> busy-spin, but waits on a queue for the net-device to wake it's tx-queue
> when over-driving a NIC.
>
I'm planning to re-merge my long-lost pktgen branch with the kernel
tree's pktgen.
I believe the main difference is that my out-of-tree pktgen does not do the
busy-spin, but waits on a queue for the net-device to wake it's tx-queue
when over-driving a NIC.
To implement this, I added a hook in th
