[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090828173511.GA4422@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:35:13 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 100Mbit ethernet performance on embedded devices
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 04:41:38PM +0200, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:56:49PM +0200, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > which came with the 2.6.20 kernel. The delay between irq ->
> > netif_rx_schedule() -> NET_RX_SOFTIRQ -> ->poll() doesn't seem
> > to be long enough. But of course my understanding of NAPI is
> > very limited, probably I missed something...
> It would've been nice to get a comment on this. Yeah I know,
> old kernel, non-mainline driver...
> On this platform NAPI seems to be a win when receiving small packets,
> but not for a single max-bandwidth TCP stream. The folks at
> stlinux.com seem to be using a dedicated hw timer to delay
> the NAPI poll() calls:
> http://www.stlinux.com/drupal/kernel/network/stmmac-optimizations
> This of course adds some latency to the packet processing,
> however in the single TCP stream case this wouldn't matter.
Does your actual system have any appreciable CPU loading? If so that
will normally have the same effect as inserting a delay in the RX path.
Some of the numbers will often look worse with NAPI when the system is
lightly loaded (though not normally throughput).
--
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