[Cerowrt-devel] bulk packet transmission

dpreed at reed.com dpreed at reed.com
Wed Oct 15 18:41:52 EDT 2014

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 at felter.org> said:

> On 10/10/14, 7:52 PM, dpreed at 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 at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20141015/186df26b/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list