netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:07:14 -0700
Cc: ak@xxxxxx, gnb@xxxxxxx, akepner@xxxxxxx, jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1114196487.7978.65.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <C925F8B43D79CC49ACD0601FB68FF50C03A633C7@orsmsx408> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504180943290.15052@linux.site> <1113855967.7436.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050419055535.GA12211@sgi.com> <m1hdhzyrdz.fsf@muc.de> <1114173195.7679.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050422172108.GA10598@muc.de> <1114193902.7978.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050422183004.GC10598@muc.de> <1114196487.7978.65.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:01:27 -0400
jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dont mean to make this into a meaningless debate - but have you thought
> of the fact maybe it could be a driver bug in case of NAPI?
> The e1000 NAPI had a serious bug since day one that was only recently
> fixed (I think Robert provided the fix - but the intel folks made the
> release).

True, but really Jamal I think a lot of this has to do with
not doing a small amount of hw coalescing even when doing NAPI.

Let's get people testing changes like that to see if it undoes
the bad cases.  I want to do something proactive with these
reports instead of just asking for more performance data like
a bunch of crazed lunatics :-)

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