From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
"bhutchings@solarflare.com" <bhutchings@solarflare.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"gospo@redhat.com" <gospo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 11/13] igb: Make Tx budget for NAPI user adjustable
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:36:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1316475390.2184.8.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E77C1D4.503@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2024 bytes --]
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 15:27 -0700, Duyck, Alexander H wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 02:00 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Alexander Duyck<alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
> > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:32:18 -0700
> >> The fact is ixgbe has been using this parameter this way for over 2
> >> years now and the main goal of this patch was just to synchronize how
> >> things work on igb and ixgbe.
> >>
> >> Our hardware doesn't have a mechanism for firing an interrupt after X
> >> number of frames so instead we simply have modified things so that we
> >> will only process X number of frames and then fire another
> >> interrupt/poll if needed. As such we aren't that far out of
> >> compliance with the meaning of how this parameter is supposed to be
> >> used.
> > All I can say is this was a huge mistake you therefore need to revert
> > the IXGBE change, these ethtool settings are not for changing NAPI or
> > software interrupt behavior.
> >
> > And if you guys plan to be difficult on this and refuse to remove the
> > IXGBE bits, I'm letting you guys know ahead of time that I'll do it
> > for you.
> >
> > If the hardware can't support this facility, neither should these
> > ethtool hooks, because the whole point is to avoid hardware interrupts
> > from firing using these parameters.
> >
> > Propose new mechanisms to control NAPI behavior if you want.
> I'll remove the ixgbe code if that is what you want. It may be a month
> or so before I can get to it though since I am slammed with work so if
> you are in a hurry for it you might want to work with Jeff Kirsher to
> have the code removed.
Alex- I will work on this to resolve the issues the Ben and Dave have
pointed out.
>
> As far as this current patch goes I honestly don't have the time to add
> or rewrite yet another ethtool interface so I will probably just see
> about dropping the ethtool portion of this patch and update the
> description in order to make it acceptable.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-19 23:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-17 8:04 [net-next 00/13][pull request] Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 01/13] ixgb: eliminate checkstack warnings Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:43 ` Joe Perches
2011-09-19 21:36 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2011-09-19 22:28 ` [PATCH] intel: Convert <FOO>_LENGTH_OF_ADDRESS to ETH_ALEN Joe Perches
2011-09-19 23:33 ` Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 02/13] igb: Update RXDCTL/TXDCTL configurations Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 03/13] igb: Update max_frame_size to account for an optional VLAN tag if present Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 04/13] igb: drop support for single buffer mode Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 05/13] igb: streamline Rx buffer allocation and cleanup Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 06/13] igb: update ring and adapter structure to improve performance Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 07/13] igb: Refactor clean_rx_irq to reduce overhead and " Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 08/13] igb: drop the "adv" off function names relating to descriptors Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 09/13] igb: Replace E1000_XX_DESC_ADV with IGB_XX_DESC Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 10/13] igb: Remove multi_tx_table and simplify igb_xmit_frame Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 11/13] igb: Make Tx budget for NAPI user adjustable Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 17:04 ` Ben Hutchings
2011-09-19 15:48 ` Alexander Duyck
2011-09-19 16:05 ` Ben Hutchings
2011-09-19 16:32 ` Alexander Duyck
2011-09-19 21:00 ` David Miller
2011-09-19 22:27 ` Alexander Duyck
2011-09-19 23:36 ` Jeff Kirsher [this message]
2011-09-19 23:42 ` Stephen Hemminger
2011-09-19 23:47 ` David Miller
2011-09-20 0:10 ` Ben Hutchings
2011-09-20 18:59 ` Andy Gospodarek
2011-09-20 20:23 ` Neil Horman
2011-09-27 23:45 ` Ben Hutchings
2011-09-28 11:00 ` Neil Horman
2011-09-28 15:11 ` Stephen Hemminger
2011-09-28 17:07 ` Neil Horman
2011-09-19 20:56 ` David Miller
2011-09-19 20:57 ` David Miller
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 12/13] igb: split buffer_info into tx_buffer_info and rx_buffer_info Jeff Kirsher
2011-09-17 8:04 ` [net-next 13/13] igb: Consolidate creation of Tx context descriptors into a single function Jeff Kirsher
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1316475390.2184.8.camel@jtkirshe-mobl \
--to=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@intel.com \
--cc=bhutchings@solarflare.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gospo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).