From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:41:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:41:10 -0400 Received: from minus.inr.ac.ru ([193.233.7.97]:14602 "HELO ms2.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:40:57 -0400 From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Message-Id: <200109281741.VAA04648@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10. To: riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:41:00 +0400 (MSK DST) Cc: mingo@elte.hu, torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, bcrl@redhat.com, andrea@suse.de In-Reply-To: from "Rik van Riel" at Sep 28, 1 02:21:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > Then how would you explain the 10% speed difference > Ben and others have seen with gigabit ethernet ? Huh... kill all the softirqs (and, even better, scheduler too) and you will see even more effect. :-) More seriously, the question is not why these 10% appears, but rather why they _disappeared_ in 2.4.7. Alexey