mogul, receive interrupt livelock

[Frans Kaashoek]

i believe there is also a journal version of that paper, which
appeared in TOCS.  i don't have it at hand, but it might contain more
details.

In message <200002020215.VAA00469 at new-york.lcs.mit.edu>, Robert Morris writes:

>Mogul's paper about receive interrupt livelock covers a lot of the
>same ground that we do. His performance test methodology is very
>similar to ours also. We need a sharp argument about how we're
>different.
>
>His technique does not appear to improve the peak forwarding rate;
>it only prevents the forwarding rate from decreasing with overload.
>Since he's turning off interrupts, I don't understand why he doesn't
>get higher peak performance. Anyway, that's a possible advantage
>we have over him.
>
>Another might be that we have a more general plan for scheduling
>all activities in a router. He only tries to control device handling.
>
>We're also going to present a much more detailed analysis of why
>we get the performance we do. Which has enabled us to do more tuning.
>
>We have language level optimizations which he can't touch.
>
>Mogul's paper is in ~rtm/papers/mogul-livelock-usenix.ps