On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:30:30 +0100 James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > What about the latency that NAPI imposes? Right now there are certain > > applications that > > don't like NAPI because it add several more microseconds, and this may make > > it worse. > > Latency is something that I think this approach will actually improve, > at the expense of additional polling. Or is it the ksoftirqd scheduling > latency that you are referring to? The problem is that you leave interrupts disabled, right. Also you are busy during idle which kills powersaving and no hz clock. > > Maybe a per-device flag or tuning parameters (like weight sysfs value)? or > > some other > > way to set low-latency values. > > Yes. I'd like to think good defaults could be derived though, perhaps > based on settings like CONFIG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMER, CONFIG_HZ > and maybe even bogomips / nr_cpus. > > -- > James Chapman > Katalix Systems Ltd > http://www.katalix.com > Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development > - 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
