Re: [Cerowrt-devel] bulk packet transmission

[dpreed@reed.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1603 bytes --]


I just read the first page of the paper so far, but it sounds like it is heading in a good direction.
It would be interesting to apply also to home access-point/switches, especially since they are now pushing 1 Gb/sec over the air.
 
I will put it on my very interesting stack.
 
 


On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:49pm, "Wes Felter" <wmf@felter.org> said:



> On 10/10/14, 7:52 PM, dpreed@reed.com wrote:
> > The best approach to dealing with "locking overhead" is to stop thinking
> > that if locks are good, more locking (finer grained locking) is better.
> > OS designers (and Linux designers in particular) are still putting in
> > way too much locking. I deal with this in my day job (we support
> > systems with very large numbers of cpus and because of the "fine
> > grained" locking obsession, the parallelized capacity is limited). If
> > you do a thoughtful design of your network code, you don't need lots of
> > locking - because TCP/IP streams don't have to interact much - they are
> > quite independent. But instead OS designers spend all their time
> > thinking about doing "one thing at a time".
> 
> The IX project looks like a promising step in that direction, although
> it still doesn't support sub-core granularity like Linux does.
> 
> https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/presentation/belay
> 
> --
> Wes Felter
> IBM Research - Austin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2738 bytes --]