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 16:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060816.163252.64000941.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060816.143203.11626235.davem@davemloft.net> <200608170016.47072.arnd@arndb.de> <20060816233028.GO20551@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arnd@arndb.de, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, akpm@osdl.org, jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jklewis@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens.Osterkamp@de.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:12230 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbWHPXcw (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:32:52 -0400 To: linas@austin.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20060816233028.GO20551@austin.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:30:28 -0500 > Why would you want o do this? It seems like a cruddier strategy > than what we can already do (which is to never get an transmit > interrupt, as long as the kernel can shove data into the device fast > enough to keep the queue from going empty.) The whole *point* of a > low-watermark interrupt is to never have to actually get the interrupt, > if the rest of the system is on its toes and is supplying data fast > enough. As long as TX packets get freed within a certain latency boundary, this kind of scheme should be fine.