jamal writes:
> Latency-wise: TX completion interrupt provides the best latency.
> Processing in the poll() -aka softirq- was almost close to the hardirq
> variant. So if you can make things run in a softirq such as transmit
> one, then the numbers will likely stay the same.
I don't remember we tried tasklet for TX a la Herbert's suggestion but we
used use tasklets for controlling RX processing to avoid hardirq livelock
in pre-NAPI versions.
Had variants of tulip driver with both TX cleaning at ->poll and TX
cleaning at hardirq and didn't see any performance difference. The
->poll was much cleaner but we kept Alexey's original work for tulip.
> Sorry, I havent been following discussions on netchannels[1] so i am not
> qualified to comment on the "replacement" part Dave mentioned earlier.
> What I can say is the tx processing doesnt have to be part of the NAPI
> poll() and still use hardirq.
Yes true but I see TX numbers with newer boards (wire rate small pakets)
with cleaing in ->poll. Also now linux is very safe in network "overload"
situations. Moving work to hardirq may change that.
Cheers.
--ro
-
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
