lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4]: powerpc/cell spidernet low watermark patch.
From
Date
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:46:18 -0500
>
> > > We're not saying to use the RX interrupt as the trigger for
> > > RX and TX work. Rather, either of RX or TX interrupt will
> > > schedule the NAPI poll.
> >
> > And, for a lark, this is exactly what I did. Just to see.
> > Because there are so few ack packets, there are very few
> > RX interrupts -- not enough to get NAPI to actually keep
> > the device busy.
>
> You're misreading me. TX interrupts are intended to be "enabled" and
> trigger NAPI polls. TX IRQ enabled, enabled :-)

Maybe be because you actually typed "disabled" in your previous
message ? :)

>> The idea is to use NAPI polling with TX interrupts disabled.

> If you want to eliminate them if the kernel keeps hopping into
> the ->hard_start_xmit() via hw interrupt mitigation or whatever,
> that's fine. But if you do need to do TX interrupt processing,
> do it in NAPI ->poll().

Well, we do need to harvest descriptors of course, though I suppose that
can be done in hard_xmit as well. I'm not sure if there is any real
benefit in batching those.

> > I'm somewhat disoriened from this conversation. Its presumably
> > clear that low-watermark mechanisms are superior to NAPI.
> > >From what I gather, NAPI was invented to deal with cheap
> > or low-function hardware; it adds nothing to this particular
> > situation. Why are we talking about this?
>
> NAPI is meant to give fairness to all devices receiving packets
> in the system, particularly in times of high load or overload.
>
> And equally importantly, it allows you to run the majority of your
> interrupt handler in software IRQ context.

That is the most important point imho for the specific case of spidernet
on cell.

> This allows not only your
> locking to be simpler, but it also allows things like oprofile to
> monitor almost your entire IRQ processing path even with just timer
> interrupt based oprofile profiling.
>
> I see you moving TX reclaim into tasklets and stuff. I've vehemently
> against that because you wouldn't need it in order to move TX
> processing into software interrupts if you did it all in NAPI
> ->poll().

Ben.

-
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: 2006-08-19 06:35    [W:0.069 / U:4.032 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site