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 3A7A8DDE47 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:47:13 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070824.144711.18301866.davem@davemloft.net> To: jchapman@katalix.com Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <46CF127D.1090609@katalix.com> References: <200708241747.16592.ossthema@de.ibm.com> <20070824085203.42f4305c@freepuppy.rosehill.hemminger.net> <46CF127D.1090609@katalix.com> 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, 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: James Chapman Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:16:45 +0100 > Does hardware interrupt mitigation really interact well with NAPI? It interacts quite excellently. There was a long saga about this with tg3 and huge SGI numa systems with large costs for interrupt processing, and the fix was to do a minimal amount of interrupt mitigation and this basically cleared up all the problems. Someone should reference that thread _now_ before this discussion goes too far and we repeat a lot of information and people like myself have to stay up all night correcting the misinformation and misunderstandings that are basically guarenteed for this topic :)