[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070302.202706.95898424.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:27:06 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jeff@...zik.org
Cc: christopher.leech@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] ioatdma: Push pending transactions to hardware
more frequently
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:14:39 -0500
> Chris Leech wrote:
> > Every 20 descriptors turns out to be to few append commands with
> > newer/faster CPUs. Pushing every 4 still cuts down on MMIO writes to an
> > acceptable level without letting the DMA engine run out of work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Leech <christopher.leech@...el.com>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/dma/ioatdma.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma/ioatdma.c b/drivers/dma/ioatdma.c
> > index 8e87261..0f77a9d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma/ioatdma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/ioatdma.c
> > @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static dma_cookie_t do_ioat_dma_memcpy(struct ioat_dma_chan *ioat_chan,
> > list_splice_init(&new_chain, ioat_chan->used_desc.prev);
> >
> > ioat_chan->pending += desc_count;
> > - if (ioat_chan->pending >= 20) {
> > + if (ioat_chan->pending >= 4) {
>
> This sounds like something that will always be wrong -- or in other
> words, always be right for only the latest CPUs. Can this be made
> dynamic, based on some timing factor?
In fact I think this has been tweaked twice in the vanilla tree
already.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists