| To: | Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:30:41 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx, jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, mitch.a.williams@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx, jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <17056.47835.583602.151291@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0450BFE8@orsmsx408> <17056.47835.583602.151291@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 22:17:31 +0200 > It is possible that a lower weight forced your driver to disable interrupts > and do packet reception w/o interrupts often this is more efficient as > we get rid intr. latency etc. > > Again I think weight should only used for fairness and not control the > threshold when to disable interrupts. > > You can test with a new policy in e1000_clean so you schedule for a new > poll if work_done (any pkts received) or tx_cleaned is true. I don't think this is it. What's happening is that E1000 pulls up to a full dev->quota of packets off the ring, and _THEN_ goes back and does RX buffer replenishing. It is very clear why E1000 runs out of RX descriptors with this kind of policy. I outlined a way to fix this in the E1000 driver in another email. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Mitch Williams |
|---|---|
| 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, Ronciak, John |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |