netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch

To: Michael Chan <mchan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:29:58 -0400
Cc: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mitch.a.williams@xxxxxxxxx, john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx, jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx, jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1117830922.4430.44.camel@rh4>
Organization: unknown
References: <20050603.120126.41874584.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.CYG.4.58.0506031202280.3344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050603.132257.23013342.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050603.132922.63997492.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1117828169.4430.29.camel@rh4> <20050603205944.GC20623@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1117830922.4430.44.camel@rh4>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 2005-03-06 at 13:35 -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 22:59 +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:

> > Which makes a lot more sense, since you'd rather do one MMIO write
> > at the end of the loop than one per iteration, especially if your
> > MMIO read (flush) latency is high.  (Any subsequent MMIO read will
> > have to flush out all pending writes, which'll be slow if there's
> > a lot of writes still in the queue.)
> > 
> I agree on the merit of issuing only one IO at the end. What I'm saying
> is that doing so will make it similar to e1000 where all the buffers are
> replenished at the end. Isn't that so or am I missing something?
> 

I think the main issue would be a lot less CPU used in your case
(because of the single MMIO).

> By the way, in tg3 there is a buffer replenishment threshold programmed
> to the chip and is currently set at rx_pending / 8 (200/8 = 25). This
> means that the chip will replenish 25 rx buffers at a time.
> 

So when you write the MMIO, 25 buffers are replenished or is this auto
magically happening in the background? Sounds like a neat feature either
way.

cheers,
jamal


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