netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Queue and SMP locking discussion (was Re: 3c59x.c)

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Queue and SMP locking discussion (was Re: 3c59x.c)
From: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:30:48 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0004010939580.19258-100000@shell.cyberus.ca>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> >     http://www.research.solidum.com/papers/ols1999/top.html
...
> [1] A modified tulip driver at 100Mbps FD which does all the rx processing 
> (record stats etc) but drops the packet instead of passing the packet up
> the stack easily handles 150Kpps.

This is a very important point: the Tulip hardware and driver in 2.0 and 2.2
can easily handle the worst a 100baseTx link can throw at it.

Just queuing the packet in netif_rx() *should* take minimal extra work, and
have minimal cache impact.  Dropping the packet because the queue layer is
full should take even less work.

I think that some people have been making the assumption that it's the
driver itself that is slow..

Donald Becker
Scyld Computing Corporation, becker@xxxxxxxxx


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