From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3559 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2008 14:14:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3535 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2008 14:14:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:14:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 3881 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2008 14:14:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bullfrog.localdomain) (sandra@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Jul 2008 14:14:29 -0000 Message-ID: <4889DF56.6070406@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:14:00 -0000 From: Sandra Loosemore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Paul_Koning@dell.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:57:14 -0400 >> From: Sandra Loosemore >> CC: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves >> >> Paul Koning wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure this is a good idea. >>> >>> For one thing, if you want to work on performance, there are much more >>> dramatic changes to the protocol that could be done that would help >>> much more. I can't believe that the cost of acks is significant >>> compared to all the other bottlenecks. >> You'll note the documentation says turning off acks may be desirable to reduce >> communication overhead *or* "for other reasons". In fact, it is the "other >> reasons" that motivated this patch. We are working on designing the extensions >> to the remote protocol to support nonstop mode, and we realized that we simply >> cannot do it in combination with using +/- acks on the asynchronous responses. > > Then please just say so in the docs. As you'll note from subsequent discussion, we decided to use another mechanism for non-stop mode, so it has no dependence on the noack mode patch any more. I'm not sure what else you think the docs for noack mode should say? Incidentally, I am working on docs for non-stop mode now -- both the user-level changes, and the remote protocol pieces. -Sandra