On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:47:15 +0200
Jan-Bernd Themann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday 24 August 2007 17:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 03:59:16PM +0200, Jan-Bernd Themann wrote:
> > > .......
> > > 3) On modern systems the incoming packets are processed very fast.
> > > Especially
> > > on SMP systems when we use multiple queues we process only a few
> > > packets
> > > per napi poll cycle. So NAPI does not work very well here and the
> > > interrupt
> > > rate is still high. What we need would be some sort of timer polling
> > > mode
> > > which will schedule a device after a certain amount of time for high
> > > load
> > > situations. With high precision timers this could work well. Current
> > > usual timers are too slow. A finer granularity would be needed to keep
> > > the
> > > latency down (and queue length moderate).
> > >
> >
> > We found the same on ia64-sn systems with tg3 a couple of years
> > ago. Using simple interrupt coalescing ("don't interrupt until
> > you've received N packets or M usecs have elapsed") worked
> > reasonably well in practice. If your h/w supports that (and I'd
> > guess it does, since it's such a simple thing), you might try
> > it.
> >
>
> I don't see how this should work. Our latest machines are fast enough that
> they
> simply empty the queue during the first poll iteration (in most cases).
> Even if you wait until X packets have been received, it does not help for
> the next poll cycle. The average number of packets we process per poll queue
> is low. So a timer would be preferable that periodically polls the
> queue, without the need of generating a HW interrupt. This would allow us
> to wait until a reasonable amount of packets have been received in the
> meantime
> to keep the poll overhead low. This would also be useful in combination
> with LRO.
>
You need hardware support for deferred interrupts. Most devices have it (e1000,
sky2, tg3)
and it interacts well with NAPI. It is not a generic thing you want done by the
stack,
you want the hardware to hold off interrupts until X packets or Y usecs have
expired.
The parameters for controlling it are already in ethtool, the issue is finding
a good
default set of values for a wide range of applications and architectures. Maybe
some
heuristic based on processor speed would be a good starting point. The dynamic
irq
moderation stuff is not widely used because it is too hard to get right.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
