|To:||"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch|
|From:||Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:59:35 -0700|
|Cc:||john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, mitch.a.williams@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx, jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0450BFE8@orsmsx408> <42A0A25C.8000503@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050603.114950.119242486.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050513 Fedora/1.7.8-1.3.1|
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Maybe the poll is disabling the IRQs on the NIC for too long, or something like that?In a reply I just sent out to this thread, I postulate that the jiffies check is hitting earlier with a lower weight value, a quick look at /proc/net/softnet_stat during their testing will confirm or deny this theory.
That would basically just decrease the work done in the NAPI poll though, so I don't see how that could be the problem, since the 'solution' was to force less work to be done.
It could also just be a simple bug in the dev->quota accounting somewhere. Note that, in all of this, I do not have any objections to providing a way to configure the dev->weight values. I will be applying Stephen Hemminger's patches.
Good. The more knobs the merrier, so long as they are at least somewhat documented and default to good sane values :) Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller|
|Next by Date:||Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller|
|Next by Thread:||Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, David S. Miller|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|