[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1191849444.4352.29.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:17:24 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, gaagaan@...il.com,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
jagana@...ibm.com, jeff@...zik.org, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com,
mcarlson@...adcom.com, mchan@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
rdreier@...co.com, rick.jones2@...com, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, sri@...ibm.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
xma@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][NET_BATCH] net core use batching
On Mon, 2007-08-10 at 10:33 +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> > As a side note: Any batching driver should _never_ have to requeue; if
> > it does it is buggy. And the non-batching ones if they ever requeue will
> > be a single packet, so not much reordering.
>
> On the contrary, batching LLTX drivers (if that is not ruled out) will very
> often requeue resulting in heavy reordering. Fix looks good though.
Two things:
one, LLTX is deprecated (I think i saw a patch which says no more new
drivers should do LLTX) and i plan if nobody else does to kill
LLTX in e1000 RSN. So for that reason i removed all code that existed to
support LLTX.
two, there should _never_ be any requeueing even if LLTX in the previous
patches when i supported them; if there is, it is a bug. This is because
we dont send more than what the driver asked for via xmit_win. So if it
asked for more than it can handle, that is a bug. If its available space
changes while we are sending to it, that too is a bug.
cheers,
jamal
-
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