Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
On 11/9/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case I am referring to, the memory is already mapped with a
previous call, which means it may be getting
mapped twice.
I guess maybe I'm not keeping up with you. This is what I
Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
On 11/9/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case I am referring to, the memory is already mapped with a
previous call, which means it may be getting
mapped twice.
I guess maybe I'm not keeping up with you. This is what I see looking
in 2.6.18, i
On 11/9/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case I am referring to, the memory is already mapped with a
previous call, which means it may be getting
mapped twice.
I guess maybe I'm not keeping up with you. This is what I see looking
in 2.6.18, i see e1000_clean_rx_irq:
che
Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
included netdev...
On 11/8/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a good reason the skb refill routine in e1000_alloc_rx_buffers
needs to go and touch and remap skb memory
on already loaded descriptors/ This seems extremely wasteful of
processor cycle
From: "Jesse Brandeburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:01:44 -0800
> If you can show that it is faster to use pci_dma_sync_single_for_cpu
> and friends I'd be glad to take a patch.
The problem is if you don't recycle the buffer and really unmap,
you'll flush twice. That can potent
included netdev...
On 11/8/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a good reason the skb refill routine in e1000_alloc_rx_buffers
needs to go and touch and remap skb memory
on already loaded descriptors/ This seems extremely wasteful of
processor cycles when refilling the ring b
