netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1
From: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:47:43 -0500 (EST)
Cc: "'netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3DC96301.7070602@candelatech.com>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ben Greear wrote:

> > The trivial case is a module option that sets a variable replacing
> > RX_RING_SIZE / TX_RING_SIZE..
> > The passed-in value shouldn't be used directly:
> >  - many drivers have upper and lower bounds
> >  - the size can only be changed when the rings are initialized,
> >    which occurs when the interface starts.
> 
> So, adjusting the ring size would require stopping and starting the
> NIC?  Is that a full bounce (including auto-negotiation)?

Most chips do not require bouncing the link when the interface is cycled
down/up.  That's not to say that some drivers don't reset the link --
it's easier for the driver writer to write the code that way, and doing
the link reset can mask other problems.

> >  - users thinking "if 32 is good, 32000 is better"
> 
> The sad truth is, most NICs/drivers do not perform at high
> speeds w/out hacking them in various ways.  Where to lay the
> blame (VM, shitty hardware, etc) is debatable, but it doesn't
> change the results.  I do know that 1024 is better than 32 for
> high speeds on muliple ports, on my NICs.

I can see that changing the parameters is a quick, ad hoc solution.
This list should focus on identifying the problems, rather than just
patching in work-arounds.

-- 
Donald Becker                           becker@xxxxxxxxx
Scyld Computing Corporation             http://www.scyld.com
410 Severn Ave. Suite 210               Scyld Beowulf cluster system
Annapolis MD 21403                      410-990-9993


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