From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]: powerpc/cell spidernet bottom half Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060816.134640.115912460.davem@davemloft.net> References: <44E34825.2020105@garzik.org> <20060816203043.GJ20551@austin.ibm.com> <44E38157.4070805@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linas@austin.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, jklewis@us.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, Jens.Osterkamp@de.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:15531 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750914AbWHPUqk (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:46:40 -0400 To: jeff@garzik.org In-Reply-To: <44E38157.4070805@garzik.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Jeff Garzik Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:34:31 -0400 > Linas Vepstas wrote: > > I was under the impression that NAPI was for the receive side only. > > That depends on the driver implementation. What Jeff is trying to say is that TX reclaim can occur in the NAPI poll routine, and in fact this is what the vast majority of NAPI drivers do. It also makes the locking simpler. In practice, the best thing seems to be to put both RX and TX work into ->poll() and have a very mild hw interrupt mitigation setting programmed into the chip. I'm not familiar with the spidernet TX side interrupt capabilities so I can't say whether that is something that can be directly implied. In fact, I get the impression that spidernet is limited in some way and that's where all the strange approaches are coming from :)