[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <mingo@xxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20011003213010.F3780@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:10:10PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> > > Well, this sounds like a 2.5 patch.  When do we get to merge it?
> >
> >
> > It is backward compatible to 2.4 netif_rx() which means it can go in now.
> > The problem is netdrivers that want to use the interface have to be
> > morphed.
> I'm alluding to the fact that we need a place to put in-development patches.

Sorry ;-> Yes, where is is 2.5 again? ;->

> > As a general disclaimer, i really dont mean to put down Ingo's efforts i
> > just think the irq mitigation idea as is now is wrong for both 2.4 and 2.5
> What is your solution to the problem?  Leaving it up to the driver authors
> doesn't work as they're not perfect.  Yes, drivers should attempt to do a
> good job at irq mitigation, but sometimes a safety net is needed.

To be honest i am getting a little nervous with what i saw in something
that seems to be a stable kernel. I was nervous  when i saw ksoftirq, but
its already in there. I think we can use the ksoftirq replacement pending
testing to show if latency is improved. I have time this weekend, if that
patch can be isolated it can be tested with NAPI etc.
As for the irq mitigation, in its current form it is insufficient; but
would be OK to go into 2.5 with plans to go and implement the isolation
feature. I would put NAPI into this same category. We can then backport
both back to 2.4.
With current 2.4, i say yes, we leave it to the drivers (and infact claim
we have a sustainable solution if conformed to)


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