netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5

To: jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jeff Garzik)
Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5
From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:12:53 +0100 (BST)
Cc: alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Cox), andrea@xxxxxxx (Andrea Arcangeli), mingo@xxxxxxx (Ingo Molnar), hadi@xxxxxxxxxx (jamal), linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Linux-Kernel), netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Linus Torvalds)
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011008100030.13807A-100000@mandrakesoft.mandrakesoft.com> from "Jeff Garzik" at Oct 08, 2001 10:03:57 AM
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> I think (Ingo's?) analogy of an airbag was appropriate, if that's indeed
> how the code winds up functioning.

Very much so

"Driver killed because the air bag enable is off by default and only
mentioned on page 87 of the handbook in a footnote"

> Having a mechanism that prevents what would otherwise be a lockup is
> useful.  NAPI is useful.  Having both would be nice :)

NAPI is important - the irq disable tactic is a last resort. If the right
hardware is irq flood aware it should only ever trigger to save us from
irq routing errors (eg cardbus hangs) 

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