| To: | "Robert Olsson" <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
| From: | "Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:19:02 -0700 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx>, <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Venkatesan, Ganesh" <ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcVoZ1hMIfRnNfjORXaqb2xRuIo6IAAAQaHw |
| Thread-topic: | RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
> It's not obvious that weight is to blame for frames dropped. I would > look into RX ring size in relation to HW mitigation. > And of course if you system is very loaded the RX softirq gives room > for other jobs and frames get dropped > With the same system (fairly high end with nothing major running on it) we got rid of the dropped frames by just reducing the weight for 64. So the weight did have something to do with the dropped frames. Maybe other factors as well, but in static tests like this it sure looks like the 64 value is wrong is some cases. Cheers, John |
| Previous by Date: | RE: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Robert Olsson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Ben Greear |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Robert Olsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |