From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from palrel10.hp.com (palrel10.hp.com [156.153.255.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "palrel10.hp.com", Issuer "RSA Data Security, Inc." (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81516DDE49 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:21:09 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <46CF1069.7090406@hp.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:07:53 -0700 From: Rick Jones MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linas Vepstas Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface References: <200708241559.17055.ossthema@de.ibm.com> <20070824153703.GN5592@sgi.com> <200708241747.16592.ossthema@de.ibm.com> <20070824085203.42f4305c@freepuppy.rosehill.hemminger.net> <20070824165110.GH4282@austin.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070824165110.GH4282@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Thomas Klein , Jan-Bernd Themann , Stefan Roscher , netdev , linux-kernel , Christoph Raisch , linux-ppc , Jan-Bernd Themann , Eder , akepner@sgi.com, Stephen Hemminger , Marcus@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Just to be clear, in the previous email I posted on this thread, I > described a worst-case network ping-pong test case (send a packet, wait > for reply), and found out that a deffered interrupt scheme just damaged > the performance of the test case. Since the folks who came up with the > test case were adamant, I turned off the defferred interrupts. > While defferred interrupts are an "obvious" solution, I decided that > they weren't a good solution. (And I have no other solution to offer). Sounds exactly like the default netperf TCP_RR test and any number of other benchmarks. The "send a request, wait for reply, send next request, etc etc etc" is a rather common application behaviour afterall. rick jones