On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 08:11, David S. Miller wrote: > Van is not against NAPI, in fact he's taking NAPI to the next level. > Softirq handling is overhead, and as this work shows, it is totally > unnecessary overhead.
I got the impression that his code was dynamically changing the e1000 interrupt mitigation registers in response to load, in other words using the capabilities of the hardware in a way that NAPI deliberately avoids doing. I'm very curious to see the details. > > How in the world can you not understand how incredible this is? Maybe "you had to be there". Van's presentation was amazingly convincing in person, in a way the slides don't convey. I've not seen a standing ovation at a technical talk before ;-) I'm very interested in vj channels for improving CPU usage of NFS and Samba servers. However, after a few days to reflect, I'm curious as to how the tx is improved. Van didn't touch upon the tx side at all, and cpu usage on tx is a significant part of the CPU usage issues for many interesting NFS workloads. The other objections raised here are non-issues for an NFS or Samba server. Greg. -- Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. I don't speak for SGI. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
