[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes]

To: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes]
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:16:51 -0500
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jason Lunz <lunz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010107D30D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010107D30D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:47:55AM -0800, Feldman, Scott wrote:
> > A better approximation I think but probably not the last...
> Thanks for you help guys!  I broke NAPI (don't hate me) and then went on
> vacation, so I apologize for not responding sooner.  I like what you've
> come up with here, so I'll turn the patch around for Jeff to update 2.5
> e1000.
> > +       e1000_clean_tx_irq(adapter);
> > +       e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter, &work_done, work_to_do);
> Just curious, why give priority to Tx over Rx?

TX frees skbs, RX allocates skbs.

You lessen the chance of allocation failure or "additional work" being
performed by the allocator when you do it in this order.


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