[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ba9b777754f7493ba14faa2dab7d8d59@realtek.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:11:57 +0000
From: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com"
<edumazet@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Paul
Menzel" <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Subject: RE: Error 'netif_napi_add_weight() called with weight 256'
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 12:37 AM
[...]
> > I test our devices on an Embedded system.
> > We find the throughput is low.
> > And it is caused by the weight.
> > Our NAPI function often uses the whole budget.
> > Finally, we increase the weight, and the throughput is good.
>
> Could it possibly be related to handling of aggregation?
> Problem must lay somewhere in USB specifics, since as I said
> there are 100Gbps devices running fine with budget of 64.
I think it depends on the platform.
Most of the platforms don't have the same situation.
Besides, I think the platform with 100Gbps device may
have faster CPU than that one which I test.
What would happen, if I set the weight to 256 on the platform
which runs well for the weight of 64?
Doesn't it only influence the slow platform?
Best Regards,
Hayes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists