From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:07:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20050422120714.35f56e76.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1113855967.7436.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050419055535.GA12211@sgi.com> <1114173195.7679.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050422172108.GA10598@muc.de> <1114193902.7978.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050422183004.GC10598@muc.de> <1114196487.7978.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ak@muc.de, gnb@sgi.com, akepner@sgi.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, davem@redhat.com Return-path: To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1114196487.7978.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:01:27 -0400 jamal wrote: > Dont mean to make this into a meaningless debate - but have you thought > of the fact maybe it could be a driver bug in case of NAPI? > The e1000 NAPI had a serious bug since day one that was only recently > fixed (I think Robert provided the fix - but the intel folks made the > release). True, but really Jamal I think a lot of this has to do with not doing a small amount of hw coalescing even when doing NAPI. Let's get people testing changes like that to see if it undoes the bad cases. I want to do something proactive with these reports instead of just asking for more performance data like a bunch of crazed lunatics :-)