From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <bro...@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:01:33 +0100
> @@ -276,7 +276,8 @@ static void mlx4_en_stamp_wqe(struct mlx4_en_priv *priv,
>
> static u32 mlx4_en_free_tx_desc(struct mlx4_en_priv *priv,
> struct mlx4_en_tx_ring *ring,
> - int index, u8 owner, u64 timestamp)
> + int index, u8 owner, u64 timestamp,
> + int napi_mode)
> {
> struct mlx4_en_tx_info *tx_info = &ring->tx_info[index];
> struct mlx4_en_tx_desc *tx_desc = ring->buf + index * TXBB_SIZE;
> @@ -347,7 +348,11 @@ static u32 mlx4_en_free_tx_desc(struct mlx4_en_priv
> *priv,
> }
> }
> }
> - dev_consume_skb_any(skb);
> + if (unlikely(napi_mode < 0))
> + dev_consume_skb_any(skb); /* none-NAPI via mlx4_en_stop_port */
> + else
> + napi_consume_skb(skb, napi_mode);
> +
> return tx_info->nr_txbb;
> }
If '0' is the signal that napi_consume_skb() uses to detect the case where we
can't bulk, just pass that instead of having a special test here on yet another
special value "-1".
If it makes any nicer, you can define a NAPI_BUDGET_FROM_NETPOLL macro
or similar.
I also wonder if passing the budget around all the way down to
napi_consume_skb() is the cleanest thing to do, as we just want to
know if bulk freeing is possible or not.
