From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: lethal@linux-sh.org
Cc: steve.glendinning@smsc.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, ian.saturley@smsc.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] smsc911x: add support for sh3 RX DMA
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:46:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081124.144603.153139690.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081124034237.GB26414@linux-sh.org>
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:42:37 +0900
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:04:33PM +0000, Steve Glendinning wrote:
> > I've been working on adding DMA support to the smsc911x driver. As this
> > family of devices is non-pci, DMA transfers must be initiated and
> > controlled by the host CPU. Unfortunately this makes some of the code
> > necessarily platform-specific.
> >
> > This patch adds RX DMA support for the sh architecture. Tested on
> > SH7709S (sh3), where it gives a small (~10%) iperf tcp throughput
> > increase. DMA or PIO is selected at compile-time.
> >
> > My first attempt stopped NAPI polling during a DMA transfer, then used
> > DMA completion interrupts to pass the packet up and re-enable polling.
> > Obviously this defeats the interrupt-mitigation of NAPI, and on my test
> > platform actually *reduced* performance!
> >
> > This patch leaves NAPI polling enabled, so a later poll completes the
> > transfer. I'm concerned this is essentially busy-waiting on the
> > transfer, but it does show a small performance gain. Is this a good or
> > bad idea?
> >
> > I'd be interested to hear if anyone has advice on how to make this
> > patch more generic. There's definitely been interest from arm pxa
> > users in adding DMA, and some of this code must be re-usable for this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@smsc.com>
>
> The intent was to move everything over to the dmaengine framework and
> have drivers (especially generic ones) opt for using that instead. This
> hasn't happened yet, but it doesn't seem like there is much point in
> adding hacks to the smsc911x driver at present given the overhead
> involved in the interrupt handling. While this is something that can
> easily be improved, I would rather put more effort in to getting things
> moved over to the generic frameworks now that they exist, and optimize
> later.
I'll therefore drop these two patches for now.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-24 22:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-23 16:04 [RFC PATCH 1/2] smsc911x: add support for sh3 RX DMA Steve Glendinning
2008-11-23 16:04 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] smsc911x: add support for sh3 TX DMA Steve Glendinning
2008-11-24 3:42 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] smsc911x: add support for sh3 RX DMA Paul Mundt
2008-11-24 22:46 ` David Miller [this message]
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=20081124.144603.153139690.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ian.saturley@smsc.com \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steve.glendinning@smsc.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox