From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: dada1@cosmosbay.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:20:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080227072041.GA4000@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080226.182120.183405235.davem@davemloft.net>
On 27-02-2008 03:21, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:51:52 +0100
>
>> Following patch directly calls netif_receive_skb() and avoids lot of
>> atomic operations.
>> (atomic_inc(&dev->refcnt), set_and_set_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED, &n->state), ...
>> atomic_dec(&dev->refcnt)...), cache line ping-pongs on device refcnt,
>> but also softirq overhead.
>>
>> This gives a nice boost on tbench for example (5 % on my machine)
>
> My only concern is stack usage.
...
I wonder why overloading with net processing is no concern here?
There would be no napi control around this netif_receive_skb().
Another concern might be a code which depends on softirq context
here (unless it was checked already)?
Regards,
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-27 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-21 18:51 [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx() Eric Dumazet
2008-02-21 20:14 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-21 23:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-02-22 10:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-27 2:21 ` David Miller
2008-02-27 7:20 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2008-02-27 7:23 ` David Miller
2008-02-27 7:34 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-01 10:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-04 4:55 ` David Miller
2008-03-04 5:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-03-04 6:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 10:29 ` David Miller
2008-03-23 18:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 19:15 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-29 1:36 ` David Miller
2008-03-29 8:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-29 23:54 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 6:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 9:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 10:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-01 9:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-04-03 14:06 ` Pavel Machek
2008-04-03 16:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:08 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 10:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 11:02 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 11:36 ` poor network loopback performance and scalability (was: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()) Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21 3:24 ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21 3:38 ` poor network loopback performance and scalability David Miller
2008-04-21 8:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21 8:16 ` David Miller
2008-04-21 10:19 ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21 10:22 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080227072041.GA4000@ff.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.