[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070824165110.GH4282@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:51:10 -0500
From: linas@...tin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Klein <tklein@...ibm.com>, Marcus@...abs.org,
Jan-Bernd Themann <themann@...ibm.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
linux-ppc <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>, akepner@....com,
Eder <meder@...ibm.com>,
Stefan Roscher <stefan.roscher@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:52:03AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> You need hardware support for deferred interrupts. Most devices have it (e1000, sky2, tg3)
> and it interacts well with NAPI. It is not a generic thing you want done by the stack,
> you want the hardware to hold off interrupts until X packets or Y usecs have expired.
Just to be clear, in the previous email I posted on this thread, I
described a worst-case network ping-pong test case (send a packet, wait
for reply), and found out that a deffered interrupt scheme just damaged
the performance of the test case. Since the folks who came up with the
test case were adamant, I turned off the defferred interrupts.
While defferred interrupts are an "obvious" solution, I decided that
they weren't a good solution. (And I have no other solution to offer).
--linas
-
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