[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46CF1069.7090406@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:07:53 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Linas Vepstas <linas@...tin.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
> 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).
Sounds exactly like the default netperf TCP_RR test and any number of other
benchmarks. The "send a request, wait for reply, send next request, etc etc
etc" is a rather common application behaviour afterall.
rick jones
-
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