| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Info: NAPI performance at "low" loads |
| From: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:11:14 -0400 |
| Cc: | akpm@xxxxxxxxx, manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | MandrakeSoft |
| References: | <3D87A264.8D5F3AD2@xxxxxxxxx> <20020917.143947.07361352.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3D87A4A2.6050403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020917.144911.43656989.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 |
David S. Miller wrote: From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:54:42 -0400 David S. Miller wrote: > Any driver should be able to get the NAPI overhead to max out at > 2 PIOs per packet.Just to pick nits... my example went from 2 or 3 IOs [depending on the presence/absence of a work loop] to 6 IOs. I mean "2 extra PIOs" not "2 total PIOs".I think it's doable for just about every driver, even tg3 with it's weird semaphore scheme takes 2 extra PIOs worst case with NAPI. The semaphore I have to ACK anyways at hw IRQ time anyways, and since I keep a software copy of the IRQ masking register, mask and unmask are each one PIO. You're looking at at least one extra get-irq-status too, at least in the classical 10/100 drivers I'm used to seeing...
Jeff
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: FIN_WAIT1 / TCP_CORK / 2.2 -- reproducible bug and test case, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: FIN_WAIT1 / TCP_CORK / 2.2 -- reproducible bug and test case, Martin Pool |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Info: NAPI performance at "low" loads, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Info: NAPI performance at "low" loads, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |