[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <036B6511-FC30-4F81-98E7-C86F6993D618@lundell-bros.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:57 -0700
From: Jonathan Lundell <linux@...dell-bros.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jay Cliburn <jacliburn@...lsouth.net>,
Grzegorz Krzystek <ninex@...ex.eu.org>, ninex@...pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] msi: Invert the sense of the MSI enables.
On May 24, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Do we have a feel for how much performace we're losing on those
>> systems which _could_ do MSI, but which will end up defaulting
>> to not using it?
>
> At least on 10GB ethernet it is a significant difference; you usually
> cannot go anywhere near line speed without MSI
>
> I suspect it is visible on high performance / multiple GB NICs too.
Why would that be? As the packet rate goes up and NAPI polling kicks
in, wouldn't MSI make less and less difference?
I like the fact that MSI gives us finer control over CPU affinity
than many INTx implementations, but that's a different issue.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists