Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

[Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@de.ibm.com>]

Hi,

On Friday 24 August 2007 17:37, akepner@sgi.com wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 03:59:16PM +0200, Jan-Bernd Themann wrote:
> > .......
> > 3) On modern systems the incoming packets are processed very fast. Espe=
cially
> > =A0 =A0on SMP systems when we use multiple queues we process only a few=
 packets
> > =A0 =A0per napi poll cycle. So NAPI does not work very well here and th=
e interrupt=20
> > =A0 =A0rate is still high. What we need would be some sort of timer pol=
ling mode=20
> > =A0 =A0which will schedule a device after a certain amount of time for =
high load=20
> > =A0 =A0situations. With high precision timers this could work well. Cur=
rent
> > =A0 =A0usual timers are too slow. A finer granularity would be needed t=
o keep the
> >    latency down (and queue length moderate).
> >=20
>=20
> We found the same on ia64-sn systems with tg3 a couple of years=20
> ago. Using simple interrupt coalescing ("don't interrupt until=20
> you've received N packets or M usecs have elapsed") worked=20
> reasonably well in practice. If your h/w supports that (and I'd=20
> guess it does, since it's such a simple thing), you might try=20
> it.
>=20

I don't see how this should work. Our latest machines are fast enough that =
they
simply empty the queue during the first poll iteration (in most cases).
Even if you wait until X packets have been received, it does not help for
the next poll cycle. The average number of packets we process per poll queue
is low. So a timer would be preferable that periodically polls the=20
queue, without the need of generating a HW interrupt. This would allow us
to wait until a reasonable amount of packets have been received in the mean=
time
to keep the poll overhead low. This would also be useful in combination
with LRO.

Regards,
Jan-Bernd