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 1082EDDE28 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:29:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070829.012916.02298847.davem@davemloft.net> To: ossthema@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <46D51BD7.6040904@de.ibm.com> References: <200708281319.03903.ossthema@de.ibm.com> <20070828.132152.38706038.davem@davemloft.net> <46D51BD7.6040904@de.ibm.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, jchapman@katalix.com, raisch@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, akepner@sgi.com, meder@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: Jan-Bernd Themann Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:10:15 +0200 > In the end I want to reduce the CPU utilization. And one way > to do that is LRO which also works only well if there are more > then just a very few packets to aggregate. So at least our > driver (eHEA) would benefit from a mix of timer based polling > and plain NAPI (depending on load situations). > > If there is no need for a generic mechanism for this kind of > network adapters, then we can just leave this to each device > driver. No objections from me either way, if something works then fine. Let's come back to this once you have a tested sample implementation that does what you want, ok?