On 4/6/2016 2:20 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Troy Kisky <troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com> > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:25:51 -0700 > >> By clearing the NAPI interrupts in the NAPI routine >> and not in the interrupt handler, we can reduce the >> number of interrupts. We also don't need any status >> variables as the registers are still valid. >> >> Also, notice that if budget pkts are received, the >> next call to fec_enet_rx_napi will now continue to >> receive the previously pending packets. >> >> To test that this actually reduces interrupts, try >> this command before/after patch >> >> cat /proc/interrupts |grep ether; \ >> ping -s2800 192.168.0.201 -f -c1000 ; \ >> cat /proc/interrupts |grep ether >> >> For me, before this patch is 2996 interrupts. >> After patch is 2010 interrupts. >> >> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky <troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com> > > I really don't think this is a good idea at all. > > I would instead really rather see you stash away the > status register values into some piece of software state, > and then re-read them before you are about to finish a > NAPI poll cycle. > >
Sure, that's an easy change. But if a TX int is what caused the interrupt and masks them, and then a RX packet happens before napi runs, do you want the TX serviced 1st, or RX ?
