On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:55:22AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:50:19 -0500 > > >>> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 73 > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > >>> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > >>> index 8c21e9a4adc7..9a9031640179 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > >>> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ > >>> static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT; > >>> module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444); > >>> +static int napi_tx_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT; > >>> + > >> > >> > >> Maybe we should use module_param for this? Or in the future, use > >> tx-frames-irq for a per-device configuration. > > > > This option should eventually just go away, and napi tx become the > > standard mode. > > > > In the short term, while we evaluate it on varied workloads, a > > module_param sounds good to me. In general that is frowned > > upon, as it leads to different configuration interfaces for each > > device driver. But that should not be a concern in this limited > > case. > > In any event, do we really need a TX weight at all? > > I guess you tried this, but why doesn't it not work to just do > all TX work unconditionally in a NAPI poll pass? This is how > we encourage all NIC drivers to handle this.
This seems to be more or less what this driver does already. So I suspect it can just ignore the weight. -- MST
