| To: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 |
| From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:55:35 +0200 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <3D78F55C.4020207@colorfullife.com> <20020906.113829.65591342.davem@redhat.com> <3D790499.8020501@colorfullife.com> <20020906.123428.28085660.davem@redhat.com> <15741.57164.402952.136812@robur.slu.se> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0) |
Robert Olsson wrote: > > Anyway. A tulip NAPI variant added mitigation when we reached "some > load" to avoid the static interrupt delay. (Still keeping things > pretty simple): > > Load "Mode" > ------------------- > Lo 1) RxIntDelay=0 > Mid 2) RxIntDelay=fix (When we had X pkts on the RX ring) > Hi 3) Consecutive polling. No RX interrupts. > Sounds good. The difficult part is when to go from Lo to Mid. Unfortunately my tulip card is braindead (LC82C168), but I'll try to find something usable for benchmarking In my tests with the winbond card, I've switched at a fixed packet rate: < 2000 packets/sec: no delay > 2000 packets/sec: poll rx at 0.5 ms --
Manfred |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Mala Anand |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Robert Olsson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Robert Olsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Robert Olsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |