[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes]

To: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [E1000] NAPI re-insertion w/ changes]
From: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:44:03 +0200
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jason Lunz <lunz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010107D314@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010107D314@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Feldman, Scott writes:
 > >  Also still some concern by having the watchdog kicked in e1000_intr 
 > >  wouldn't e1000_clean feel better? 
 > e1000_intr feels better to me in keeping the clean-up work separate from
 > managing link status change (hopefully an infrequent event :).  Do you
 > see any problems?

 Well I was afraid that this would not be run at very heavy loads due to 
 interrupt disabling but I forgot:

e1000_watchdog(unsigned long data)
    /* Cause software interrupt to ensure rx ring is cleaned */
    E1000_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, ICS, E1000_ICS_RXDMT0);

 Which generates irq from watchdog/timer so it should work and all practial 
 experiments indicates this is OK.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>