netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 3c59x (was Route cache performance under stress)

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




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>