From: Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:29:05 -0700
> This is a digression from spidernet, but what if a device is able to
> generate separate MSIs for TX and RX? Some people from IBM have
> suggested that it is beneficial for throughput to handle TX work and
> RX work f
David> Don't touch interrupts until both RX and TX queue work is
David> fullydepleted. You seem to have this notion that RX and TX
David> interrupts are seperate. They aren't, even if your device
David> can generate those events individually. Whatever interrupt
David> you get
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:52:44 -0500
> Under what circumstance does one turn TX interrupts back on?
> I couldn't quite figure that out.
Don't touch interrupts until both RX and TX queue work is
fullydepleted. You seem to have this notion that RX and TX in
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 01:25:18PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> What is the best way to treat the IRQ mask for TX interrupts?
> I guess it should be roughly:
>
> - off when we expect ->poll() to be called, i.e. after calling
> netif_rx_schedule() or returning after a partial rx from poll().
On Sunday 20 August 2006 03:31, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> The reason reclaim via poll() is efficient is because it avoid causing a
> softirq that is
> necessary when skb_free_irq() is done. Instead it reuses the softirq
> from the poll() routine.
Ok, I completely missed this point so far, t
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 19 August 2006 01:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Someone should probably document that in
Documentation/networking/NAPI_HOWTO.txt, I might end up doing that
once we get it right for spidernet
The reason reclaim via poll() is efficient is because it avoid cau
On Saturday 19 August 2006 01:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Someone should probably document that in
> Documentation/networking/NAPI_HOWTO.txt, I might end up doing that
> once we get it right for spidernet.
Oh well, what else is there to do on a Friday night ;-)
This is a first draft, I expect to
