| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20070826.185815.93042514.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:58:15 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: jchapman@...alix.com Cc: shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, ossthema@...ibm.com, akepner@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, raisch@...ibm.com, themann@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, meder@...ibm.com, tklein@...ibm.com, stefan.roscher@...ibm.com Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface From: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:36:20 +0100 > David Miller wrote: > > From: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com> > > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:16:45 +0100 > > > >> Does hardware interrupt mitigation really interact well with NAPI? > > > > It interacts quite excellently. > > If NAPI disables interrupts and keeps them disabled while there are more > packets arriving or more transmits being completed, why do hardware > interrupt mitigation / coalescing features of the network silicon help? Because if your packet rate is low enough such that the cpu can process the interrupt fast enough and thus only one packet gets processed per NAPI poll, the cost of going into and out of NAPI mode dominates the packet processing costs. - 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