On 10/25/06, Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Vogel wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Doug Ambrisko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 3) In em_process_receive_interrupts/em_rxeof always decrement
>> the count on every run through the loop. If you notice
>> count is an is an int that starts at the passed in value
>> of -1. It then count-- until count==0. Doing -1, -2, -3
>> takes awhile until the int rolls over to 0. Passing 100
>> limits it more :-) So this can run 3 * 100 versuses
>> infinite * int roll over assuming we don't skip a count--.
>
> Been chatting with Jesse Brandeburg (one of our senior Linux guys) about
> receive side cleaning. Gave me a number of things to think about. First
> off,
> this change you mention is problematic. The reason it doesnt increment
> every time thru the while loop is its meant as a packet counter, NOT a
> descriptor counter. If we just fix this number at 100, and have it only
> counting descriptors you could get all but the EOP descriptor of a packet
> and then exit without finishing it and calling the stack, not a good
> tactic.
>
> Having a limited count is still a good idea, but I think we still want
> to base
> it on packets and not just descriptors.
>
> Jesse also talked about their experience with the Linux driver, deciding
> where to update the RDT, my current code doesnt do it til after the whole
> while loop is completed (havent looked at CURRENT again today yet),
> Jesse suggested doing it but not EVERY pass in the loop, maybe making
> it mod the number of rx descriptors. Having that AND a fixed limit on the
> number of total packets cleaned in a pass might be good.
Good idea. Though for 1518 byte frames, I think you'll only have one
descriptor per packet. Definitely need to do the right thing for jumbo
frames, though.
>
> I was also thinking, maybe having the taskqueue code be selectable, but
> not just a POLL vs TASKQUEUE, rather keep a legacy intr option which
> has a POLL option within it.
>
> My motivation for doing that is I can take the TASKQUEUE code into the
> Intel code base, but make it backward compatible, the default would have
> it optioned off.
>
> Jack
I had it that way initially, and I think you commented that it was ugly
;-)
Naaahhhh, couldnt be, I'd never do anything like that :)
OHHHH, I know what you're talking about. When I first started this job a year
ago the driver was just PEPPERED with all these #if _FreeBSD_Version < BladdyFoo
or something like that. I think the Intel code base was even worse cuz Tony was
trying to make a single source base for 4.X and 5.X at that point. It
was a major
pain to look at that code :)
What I'm talking about is a simple #ifdef EM_FASTINTR or something like that,
no defines that remind me of POSIX header files please :)
Jack
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
