Subject: Re: But why?
To: David S. Miller <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/24/1996 00:52:47
"David S. Miller" writes:
> > Indeed nice. On the SS10 with Happy Meal ethernet cards the code path
> > at each end works out to something like:
> This is *not* a microoptimization. Its the sort of real optimization I
> keep mentioning. Eliminating copies is significant in networking
> stacks. It isn't the same thing as making getpid() run two million
> times a second.
> I would not be even close to the numbers I get if:
> a) my task switch wasn't twice as fast as Solaris on Sparc
> b) my syscal entry/exit was not as fast
> c) my interrupt latency was not so low
Thats silly. Lets say we are on an FDDI ring. Nice 4k MTU. Are you
going to tell me, with a straight face, that a 4k copy isn't going to
blow the syscall delay into the small fractions of a percent? Hell,
are you going to tell me that a 1.5k copy and checksum isn't going to
blow it to hell? Eliminating the unneeded COPY is the win. The
micro-optimizations are down in the noise.
I'm not arguing this any longer. Go on and continue microoptimizing. I
have no interest in spending my own life that way.