netdev - RE: [net-next] bnx2x: Handle Rx and Tx together in NAPI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8628FE4E7912BF47A96AE7DD7BAC0AADCB2D07B395@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:47:03 -0800
From:	"Vladislav Zolotarov" <vladz@...adcom.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@...adcom.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next] bnx2x: Handle Rx and Tx together in NAPI

> > There is another decision to make: what to do when Rx hasn't
> > consumed the whole budget and there is still Tx work to do. I think
> > that in this case we need to return "budget", so that we pushed to
> > the end on the local NAPI's list, "consuming" some global Rx budget
> > of the local NAPI. Another option is to return the number of Rx
> > packets handled and make this NAPI be called at once. My decision is
> > based on the fact that there were scenarios when net_tx_action and
> > net_rx_action were running on different CPUs in UDP Tx test and were
> > feeding each other. In this case if I implemented the later option I
> > would prevent other local NAPIs to run.
> 
> I think you should always process all of the pending TX work first,
> then do RX work and base your budget and rescheduling decisions
> purely on RX work.

Ok. I'm sending u a new patch.
--
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