[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:51:55 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0110031138150.4833-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, jamal wrote:

> this code was added by Robert to check something; cant remember the
> details on that specific date. [...]


> > +         while (!list_empty(&queue->poll_list)) {
> > +                 struct net_device *dev;
> > [...]
> > +                 if (dev->quota <= 0 || dev->poll(dev, &budget)) {
> > +                         local_irq_disable();
> > +                         list_del(&dev->poll_list);
> > +                         list_add_tail(&dev->poll_list, &queue->poll_list);

> You misunderstood. This is to enforce fairness. [...]

(i did not criticize the list_add/list_del in any way, it's obviously
correct to cycle the polled devices. I highlited that code only to show
that the current patch as-is polls too agressively for generic server

> Read the paper.

(i prefer source code. Can i assume the 'authorative' patch to be the one
with the "goto not_done;" line removed, correct?)

> > In a generic computing environment i want to spend cycles doing useful
> > work, not polling. Even the quick kpolld hack [which i dropped, so please
> > dont regard it as a 'competitor' patch] i consider superior to this, as i
> > can renice kpolld to reduce polling. (plus kpolld sucks up available idle
> > cycles as well.) Unless i royally misunderstand it, i cannot stop the
> > above code from wasting my cycles, and if that is true i do not want to
> > see it in the kernel proper in this form.

> The interupt just flags "i, netdev, have work to do"; [...]

(and the only thing i pointed out was that the patch as-is did not limit
the amount of polling done.)

> > *if* you can make polling a success in ~90% of the time we enter
> > tulip_poll() under non-specific server load (ie. not routing), then i
> > think you have really good metrics.
> we can make it 100% successful; i mentioned that we only do work, if
> there is work to be done.

can you really make it 100% successful for rx? Ie. do you only ever call
the ->poll() function if there is a new packet waiting? How do you know
with a 100% probability that someone on the network just sent a new packet
waiting? (without receiving an interrupt to begin with that is.)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>