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)