On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:46:28AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> In message <5098e8b4.5040...@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann writes:
>
> >> I think it should go away, and if there still is a relevant
> >> usage segment, be replaced by _real_ "device-polling" which is
> >> not tied to
On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Chuck Burns wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:36:46 PM Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> On 06.11.2012 12:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Andre Oppermann
> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
Hi Luigi,
do you agree on polling having
Le 6 nov. 2012 à 12:42, Andre Oppermann a écrit :
> On 06.11.2012 12:02, Fabien Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Luigi,
>>>
>>> do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
>>> of interrupt moderating NIC's and SMP complications/disadvantages?
>>>
>> If you have only one i
On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:36:46 PM Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 06.11.2012 12:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Andre Oppermann
wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> Hi Luigi,
> >>
> >> do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
> >> of interru
On 06.11.2012 12:02, Fabien Thomas wrote:
Hi Luigi,
do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
of interrupt moderating NIC's and SMP complications/disadvantages?
If you have only one interface yes polling is not really necessary.
If you have 10 interfaces the inter
On 06.11.2012 12:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
Hi Luigi,
do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
of interrupt moderating NIC's and SMP complications/disadvantages?
yes, we should let it rest in peace.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> Hi Luigi,
>
> do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
> of interrupt moderating NIC's and SMP complications/disadvantages?
yes, we should let it rest in peace.
One part of the NIC-polling framework
>>
>
> Hi Luigi,
>
> do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
> of interrupt moderating NIC's and SMP complications/disadvantages?
>
If you have only one interface yes polling is not really necessary.
If you have 10 interfaces the interrupt moderation threshold is ha
In message <5098e8b4.5040...@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann writes:
>> I think it should go away, and if there still is a relevant
>> usage segment, be replaced by _real_ "device-polling" which is
>> not tied to the network stack.
>
>Don't we already have the equivalent with a fast interru
On 06.11.2012 11:27, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <5098e526.6070...@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann writes:
Hi Luigi,
do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
of interrupt moderating NIC's and SMP complications/disadvantages?
Can I just point out, tha
In message <5098e526.6070...@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann writes:
>Hi Luigi,
>
>do you agree on polling having outlived its usefulness in the light
>of interrupt moderating NIC's and SMP complications/disadvantages?
Can I just point out, that what we have is not in fact "device-polling"
On 05.11.2012 17:57, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:25:36PM +, Joe Holden wrote:
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:11:41AM -0500, Ryan Stone wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Joe Holden wrote:
doh, running kernel wasn't as GENERIC as I thought it was, loo
12 matches
Mail list logo
