From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:13:11 -0500
> @@ -1495,16 +1500,16 @@ spider_net_interrupt(int irq, void *ptr,
> if (!status_reg)
> return IRQ_NONE;
>
> - if (status_reg & SPIDER_NET_RXINT ) {
> + if (status_reg & SPIDER_NET_RXINT) {
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:33:42PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 18:45 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 06:29:42PM -0500, linas wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you are saying. If I call the transmit
> > > queue cleanup code from the
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 18:45 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 06:29:42PM -0500, linas wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand what you are saying. If I call the transmit
> > queue cleanup code from the poll() routine, nothing hapens,
> > because the kernel does not call the poll()
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas)
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:46:18 -0500
>
> > > We're not saying to use the RX interrupt as the trigger for
> > > RX and TX work. Rather, either of RX or TX interrupt will
> > > schedule the NAPI poll
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 06:29:42PM -0500, linas wrote:
>
> I don't understand what you are saying. If I call the transmit
> queue cleanup code from the poll() routine, nothing hapens,
> because the kernel does not call the poll() routine often
> enough. I've stated this several times.
OK, Ar
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:51:16PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> I see you moving TX reclaim into tasklets and stuff. I've vehemently
> against that because you wouldn't need it in order to move TX
> processing into software interrupts if you did it all in NAPI
> ->poll().
I don't understand what
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:46:18 -0500
> > We're not saying to use the RX interrupt as the trigger for
> > RX and TX work. Rather, either of RX or TX interrupt will
> > schedule the NAPI poll.
>
> And, for a lark, this is exactly what I did. Just to see.
>
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:25:13PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas)
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:23:56 -0500
>
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:43:40AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good (without actually looking at the code though :), th
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:23:56 -0500
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:43:40AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good (without actually looking at the code though :), that was a
> > long required improvement to that driver. Also, we should pro
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:43:40AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Sounds good (without actually looking at the code though :), that was a
> long required improvement to that driver. Also, we should probably look
> into using NAPI polling for tx completion queue as well, no ?
Just for a
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 12:08 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> Implement basic low-watermark support for the transmit queue.
>
> The basic idea of a low-watermark interrupt is as follows.
> The device driver queues up a bunch of packets for the hardware
> to transmit, and then kicks he hardware to g
Implement basic low-watermark support for the transmit queue.
The basic idea of a low-watermark interrupt is as follows.
The device driver queues up a bunch of packets for the hardware
to transmit, and then kicks he hardware to get it started.
As the hardware drains the queue of pending, untrans
12 matches
Mail list logo
