| To: | "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes] |
| From: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:28:14 +0100 |
| Cc: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010107D2D8@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com> |
| References: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010107D2D8@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Feldman, Scott writes:
> > It's clean but I have some concerns...
>
> Thanks for the feedback. It's a twist on the previous driver where we
> disabled/enabled interrupts each time we went in/out of polling. Trying
> to avoid those extra PCI writes. My experience is that you have to
> really load up the interface to stay in polling mode (get up on step).
True. Making interrupt delay larger will collect more packets on RX-ring
and have the two PCI-writes to disable/enables irq to be shared by many
packets.
> Should be the same interrupt rate with or without NAPI.
When NAPI stays in polling there are no interrupts and no extra PCI-writes
so the high-load situation is optimized.
So I fear that interrupts are now added to the high-load situation and this
will impact top performance -- especially with many NIC's.
But lets see what comes out from testing.
Cheers.
--ro
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | ip6sec MTU/fragmentation issue / Was: Re: [PATCH] Fix ip6_build_xmit bug, bert hubert |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] (Updated) IPSec: IPv6 source address not set correctly in xfrm_state, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes], Feldman, Scott |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes], Robert Olsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |