![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:37:42PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:30:00PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:14:50 +0200 > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > There are no hardirqs in the case under investigation, remember? > > > > > > no hardirqs? there must be tons of hardirqs if ksoftirqd never runs. > > > > NAPI should be kicking in for this workload, and I know for a fact it is > > for Robert's case. There should only be a few thousand hard irqs per > > second. > > > > Until the RX ring is depleted the device's hardirqs will not be re- > > enabled. > > then Dipankar is reproducing with a workload that is completely > different. I've only seen the emails from Dipankar so I couldn't know it > was a NAPI load. > > He posted these numbers: > > softirq_count, ksoftirqd_count and other_softirq_count shows - > > CPU 0 : 638240 554 637686 > CPU 1 : 102316 1 102315 > CPU 2 : 675696 557 675139 > CPU 3 : 102305 0 102305 > > that means nothing runs in ksoftirqd for Dipankar, so he cannot be using > NAPI. And I am not. I am still on 2.6.0 and there seems to be no NAPI support for the e100 there. Should I try 2.6.4 where e100 has NAPI support ? Anyway, even without softirqs on the back of hardirqs, there are other ways of softirq overload as seen in Robert's setup. Thanks Dipankar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||