Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: arm: Optimization for ethernet MAC handling at91_ether.c | Date | Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:03:46 -0500 | From | "James Kosin" <> |
| |
On 1/12/2010 1:50 PM, James Kosin wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Eric Dumazet > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:08 PM > To: James Kosin > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Linux Netdev List > Subject: Re: arm: Optimization for ethernet MAC handling at91_ether.c > > Le 12/01/2010 18:51, James Kosin a écrit : >> On 1/12/2010 11:40 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > I know. Actually, I am using the hardware; and the part is capable of more than this driver is displaying. > > 1) The part is able to queue up two packets (1) actively being transmitted, and (1) queued up behind that packet. The driver doesn't exploit this; probably because this would cause some confusion, since we wouldn't really know which packet failed when this happens. > > 2) TX performance is so..so. With bing on another computer using '-z' option it is reporting a fairly good value of 74Mbps. I'll have to try with a re-compiled kernel at some point to give better feedback if we can improve this more. > > Your interpretation makes some sense on the transmit side. The RX currently has a DMA queue that extends to a depth of 9 (currently). So getting one transmit out before checking the RX may improve things a bit. >
Scratch that. The interrupt doesn't queue up or send another packet directly. So, it wouldn't help on performance here. But, may in other implementations that queue/transmit packets in the ISR. At least in the case where the transmitter is limited to one.
James -- 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/
| |