lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 7 Oct 2007 11:08:08 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] forcedeth: several proposed updates for testing
* Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:

> * I feel TX NAPI is a useful tool, because it provides an independent TX
>   process control point and system load feedback point.
>   Thus I felt this was slightly superior to tasklets.

/me agrees violently

btw., when i played with this tunable under -rt:

 enum {
         NV_OPTIMIZATION_MODE_THROUGHPUT,
         NV_OPTIMIZATION_MODE_CPU
 };
 static int optimization_mode = NV_OPTIMIZATION_MODE_THROUGHPUT;
the MODE_CPU one gave (much) _higher_ bandwidth. The queueing model in 
forcedeth seemed to be not that robust and i think a single queueing 
model should be adopted instead of this tunable. (which i think just hid 
some bug/dependency) But i never got to the bottom of it so it's just 
the impression i got.

	Ingo
-
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: 2007-10-07 11:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2008