linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] HOWTO use NAPI to reduce TX interrupts

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20060821.173225.68047257.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	rdreier@...co.com
Cc:	linas@...tin.ibm.com, arnd@...db.de, shemminger@...l.org,
	akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jklewis@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	Jens.Osterkamp@...ibm.com, jgarzik@...ox.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] HOWTO use NAPI to reduce TX interrupts

From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:29:05 -0700

> This is a digression from spidernet, but what if a device is able to
> generate separate MSIs for TX and RX?  Some people from IBM have
> suggested that it is beneficial for throughput to handle TX work and
> RX work for IP-over-InfiniBand in parallel on separate CPUs, and
> handling everything through the ->poll() method would defeat this.

The TX work is so incredibly cheap, relatively speaking, compared
to the full input packet processing path that the RX side runs
that I see no real benefit.

In fact, you might even get better locality due to the way the
locking can be performed if TX reclaim runs inside of ->poll()
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/