From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8256DDF49 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:44:37 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070824.144436.59664160.davem@davemloft.net> To: dlstevens@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20070824085203.42f4305c@freepuppy.rosehill.hemminger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tklein@de.ibm.com, themann@de.ibm.com, stefan.roscher@de.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, raisch@de.ibm.com, netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, akepner@sgi.com, meder@de.ibm.com, ossthema@de.ibm.com, shemminger@linux-foundation.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: David Stevens Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:50:58 -0700 > Problem is if it increases rapidly, you may drop packets > before you notice that the ring is full in the current estimated > interval. This is one of many reasons why hardware interrupt mitigation is really needed for this.