On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 09:52 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:25:00 -0700, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > > Two lines below this change you are disabling interrupts anyways, > > so I would suggest just moving the spin_lock_irqsave() before the > > napi_gro_flush() to fix this. > > > > Many of the checks done by napi_complete_done() (invoked by > > napi_complete()) are completely redundant in this context. For > > example, the direct __napi_complete() call is a really nice > > optimization because we know we are on the poll list and therefore > > it is not empty. > > Thank you for your suggestion. > > I think napi_gro_flush() can be called with irq enabled, so moving the > spin_lock_irqsave() just before the __napi_complete() (or moving the > __napi_complete() just after the spin_lock_irqsave()) would be better, > right?
Unless masking irqs are damn slow on hosts supporting this NIC, I would rather use napi_complete_done() and add the possibility of aggregating more frames per GRO packet, setting a non zero gro_flush_timeout Calling napi_gro_flush() and __napi_complete() looks error prone. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
