Peter Jeremy writes: > On Thu, 2006-May-25 12:40:00 +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote: > >* Thus spake Max Laier (max_at_love2party.net): > >> I'm a little scared about this. We have had several problems in the > >> checksumming code that were due to -O2 or -O0 that screwed up just a little > > > | * This routine is very heavily used in the network > > | * code and should be modified for each CPU to be as fast as > > | * possible. > > But _correct_ code is far more important. And I'm not sure that comment > is still as relevant as it used to be - most (if not all) gigabit NICs > have checksum offloading and processors are fast enough that generic > checksum code should be "good enough" for most lesser purposes. The benchmark quoted in the original post is interesting in that it is the best example of where improving the checksumming code would help, yet we really should not be checksumming packets sent across lo0 anyway. If we're going to do anything, I'd prefer to see us skip the checksum on everything sent across lo0 and stick with the slower, yet known to work, existing checksum code for slow interfaces. DrewReceived on Thu May 25 2006 - 14:22:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:56 UTC