[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ae1c5e6045b24dbfaf9cfa20566e9be6@realtek.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 07:07:13 +0000
From: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Paul Menzel" <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Subject: RE: Error 'netif_napi_add_weight() called with weight 256'
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 2:38 AM
[...]
> High weight will cause higher latency for other softirq and RT
> processing, it's not a good idea. Even with weight/budget of 64
> if there's no higher prio work to do the driver will be polled
> again immediately if it consumed the budget and has more packets.
I mean that only the slow platform uses more than 64 budget,
even I set the weight to 256.
That is, for the fast platform, the actual used budget is always less than 64,
even the weight is 256.
> Do you have some actual data on how the device performs with budget
> of 64 and 256? And maybe perf traces to show where the difference goes?
I tested that slow embedded platform many years ago, so I
don't remember the actual data.
I think the difference is more than 400Mbps.
Best Regards,
Hayes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists