Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-29 Thread James Chapman
doesn't involve generating other interrupts using hrtimers etc. :) Initial results are very encouraging in my setups. Would you be willing to test it with eHEA? I don't have a 10G setup. If results are encouraging, I'll post an RFC to ask for review / feedback from the NAPI

Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-28 Thread James Chapman
Jan-Bernd Themann wrote: > On Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:22, James Chapman wrote: >>> So in this scheme what runs ->poll() to process incoming packets? >>> The hrtimer? >> No, the regular NAPI networking core calls ->poll() as usual; no timers >> are

Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-28 Thread James Chapman
David Miller wrote: > From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:41:43 +0100 > >> I don't recall saying anything in previous posts about this. Are you >> confusing my posts with Jan-Bernd's? > > Yes, my bad. > >>

Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-27 Thread James Chapman
David Miller wrote: > From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:51:29 +0100 > >> To implement this, there's no need for timers, hrtimers or generic NAPI >> support that others have suggested. A driver's poll() would set an &g

Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-27 Thread James Chapman
Jan-Bernd Themann wrote: > On Monday 27 August 2007 17:51, James Chapman wrote: > >> In the second half of my previous reply (which seems to have been >> deleted), I suggest a way to avoid this problem without using hardware >> interrupt mitigation / coalescing. Origi

Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-27 Thread James Chapman
David Miller wrote: > From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:36:20 +0100 > >> David Miller wrote: >>> From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:16:45 +0100 >>> >>>> Does ha

Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-26 Thread James Chapman
David Miller wrote: > From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:16:45 +0100 > >> Does hardware interrupt mitigation really interact well with NAPI? > > It interacts quite excellently. If NAPI disables interrupts and keeps them disabled wh

Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

2007-08-24 Thread James Chapman
s, while minimizing packet processing latency. No need for hardware interrupt mitigation. > 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 &