Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:39:50 -0400 (EDT) | From | jamal <> | Subject | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 |
| |
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:10:10PM -0400, jamal wrote: > > > Well, this sounds like a 2.5 patch. When do we get to merge it? > > > > > > It is backward compatible to 2.4 netif_rx() which means it can go in now. > > The problem is netdrivers that want to use the interface have to be > > morphed. > > I'm alluding to the fact that we need a place to put in-development patches. >
Sorry ;-> Yes, where is is 2.5 again? ;->
> > As a general disclaimer, i really dont mean to put down Ingo's efforts i > > just think the irq mitigation idea as is now is wrong for both 2.4 and 2.5 > > What is your solution to the problem? Leaving it up to the driver authors > doesn't work as they're not perfect. Yes, drivers should attempt to do a > good job at irq mitigation, but sometimes a safety net is needed. >
To be honest i am getting a little nervous with what i saw in something that seems to be a stable kernel. I was nervous when i saw ksoftirq, but its already in there. I think we can use the ksoftirq replacement pending testing to show if latency is improved. I have time this weekend, if that patch can be isolated it can be tested with NAPI etc. As for the irq mitigation, in its current form it is insufficient; but would be OK to go into 2.5 with plans to go and implement the isolation feature. I would put NAPI into this same category. We can then backport both back to 2.4. With current 2.4, i say yes, we leave it to the drivers (and infact claim we have a sustainable solution if conformed to)
cheers, jamal
- 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/
|  |