| To: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jeff Garzik) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: New net features for added performance |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:14:55 +0300 (MSK) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3A9AEFAF.1DC89A8A@mandrakesoft.com> from "Jeff Garzik" at Feb 27, 1 03:15:07 am |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > I only want to know if more are coming, not actually pass multiples.. BTW trying to strain brains how could driver to use this... TX irq mitigation is maximally aggressive even without this, such information is simply useless for mitigation. Merging index updates? Well, it is too easy to do again (for drivers using tx spinlock). Just do not tell driver about new index until at least one of two conditions happen: 1. >N frames are queued at driver (in hard_start_xmit) 2. <M frames are pushed to device (in tx interrupt). That's all, you cannot win more using only "more" flag and not pushing real vector of skbs to hard_start_xmit. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy.. While working on ip.h stuff, Michael Peddemors |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | netdevice->interrupt and netdevice->tbusy from 2.2 to 2.4, Jason Duerstock |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: New net features for added performance, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | netdevice->interrupt and netdevice->tbusy from 2.2 to 2.4, Jason Duerstock |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |