From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030610.093927.21906828.davem@redhat.com> References: <20030610061010.Y36963@shell.cyberus.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@shell.cyberus.ca, xerox@foonet.net, sim@netnation.com, fw@deneb.enyo.de, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: ralph+d@istop.com, ralph@istop.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Ralph Doncaster Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Yes, and it would be nice if you mentioned in your NAPI docs that people should use a tulip, tg3, or e1000 if they want it to work well. In making your sales pitches for NAPI you made it sound like any high-performance card should do fine (i.e. anything but a Realtek). The problems the 3c59x has is nothing to do with NAPI vs. non-NAPI. You're routing rate is limited by how much time a PIO to the PCI device takes :)