| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 3c59x (was Route cache performance under stress) |
| From: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:23:42 -0400 |
| Cc: | Bogdan Costescu <bogdan.costescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx, xerox@xxxxxxxxxx, sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030610162029.GA8168@wotan.suse.de> |
| References: | <20030610.085342.41654796.davem@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306101801070.26879-100000@kenzo.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> <20030610162029.GA8168@wotan.suse.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Can't you just wrap it in a few macros and offer a config for those
> who want the best performance and a runtime test for the others?
> Then switch between PIO and mmio dynamically.
>
> Even runtime test should be pretty painless these days, the CPU normally
> can execute hundreds or even thousands of tests in the time it takes to
> wait for an mmio or even PIO.
I prefer a compile-time test. But yes, this is what several other
net drivers do: offer a config option for MMIO (or PIO), and the
default is MMIO unless that is known to be unsafe on certain boards
(which, unfortunately, it is).
Jeff
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: 3c59x (was Route cache performance under stress), Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 3c59x (was Route cache performance under stress), Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 3c59x, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |