From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCHES] TX batching Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:38:25 -0400 Message-ID: <1190673505.4264.11.camel@localhost> References: <20070914090058.17589.80352.sendpatchset@K50wks273871wss.in.ibm.com> <20070916.161748.48388692.davem@davemloft.net> <1189988958.4230.55.camel@localhost> <1190569987.4256.52.camel@localhost> <46F6AE18.7080708@garzik.org> <1190574713.5030.4.camel@localhost> <46F6C059.6000600@intel.com> <1190582448.4240.2.camel@localhost> <46F76087.8030109@intel.com> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Garzik , David Miller , krkumar2@in.ibm.com, johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, kaber@trash.net, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, jagana@us.ibm.com, Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, rick.jones2@hp.com, xma@us.ibm.com, gaagaan@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, mcarlson@broadcom.com, mchan@broadcom.com, general@lists.openfabrics.org, kumarkr@linux.ibm.com, tgraf@suug.ch, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, sri@us.ibm.com To: "Kok, Auke" Return-path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.249]:24929 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756171AbXIXWie (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:38:34 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d31so252436and for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46F76087.8030109@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-24-09 at 00:00 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote: > that's bad to begin with :) - please send those separately so I can fasttrack them > into e1000e and e1000 where applicable. Ive been CCing you ;-> Most of the changes are readability and reusability with the batching. > But yes, I'm very inclined to merge more features into e1000e than e1000. I intend > to put multiqueue support into e1000e, as *all* of the hardware that it will > support has multiple queues. Putting in any other performance feature like tx > batching would absolutely be interesting. I looked at the e1000e and it is very close to e1000 so i should be able to move the changes easily. Most importantly, can i kill LLTX? For tx batching, we have to wait to see how Dave wants to move forward; i will have the patches but it is not something you need to push until we see where that is going. cheers, jamal