From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29527 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2008 13:41:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 29514 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2008 13:41:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:41:35 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.112.15]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K4K00JXXE18G6A2@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:41:33 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:41:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement In-reply-to: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Sandra Loosemore Cc: Paul_Koning@dell.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00437.txt.bz2 > 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.