From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: rdreier@cisco.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, shemminger@linux-foundation.org,
jgarzik@pobox.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC]: napi_struct V5
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:06:51 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070807.160651.98554604.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <adasl6vq8d1.fsf@cisco.com>
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:37:30 -0700
> > n = ib_poll_cq(priv->cq, t, priv->ibwc);
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>
> it might be nicer to avoid noise like this in the patch.
That one was just too much of an eye sore to ignore and it
effect my ability to audit the change I was making.
I mean, this is one of the first precise examples of kinds of
programming that lead to subtle bugs mentioned in The Practice of
Programming.
So this is staying in the patch, sorry.
> this goto back to the polling loop is a change in behavior. When we
> were tuning NAPI, we found that returning in the missed event case and
> letting the NAPI core call the poll routine later actually performed
> better, because it allowed more work to pile up.
You weren't using your quantum, which is what you're supposed to do.
Sometimes using your quantum correctly won't perform optimally, but in
the interest of fairness and what NAPI wants, that is what you're
supposed to do, process work until you hit budget or there is no
more work.
Look, I'm not going to back down to every single tweak in every
driver. All the drivers should handle this case consistently, and if
I have to edit every single driver to make this patch that is exactly
what I am going to do and enforce.
If you patch the ipoib driver behavior back afterwards, I will NAK
that patch every single time unless you make EVERY SINGLE OTHER DRIVER
do the same and thus retain the consistency.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-07 23:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-06 6:24 [PATCH RFC]: napi_struct V5 David Miller
2007-08-06 18:00 ` Michael Chan
2007-08-06 20:50 ` David Miller
2007-08-07 12:52 ` jamal
2007-08-08 0:59 ` David Miller
2007-08-08 12:10 ` jamal
2007-08-09 4:35 ` David Miller
2007-08-07 22:37 ` Roland Dreier
2007-08-07 23:06 ` David Miller [this message]
2007-08-08 3:56 ` Roland Dreier
2007-08-08 4:08 ` David Miller
[not found] ` <OFA2F18805.38AA0BD0-ON87257331.005367FB-88257331.0027BEED@us.ibm.com>
2007-08-08 15:32 ` jamal
2007-08-09 4:23 ` David Miller
2007-08-09 5:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-08-09 16:58 ` Roland Dreier
2007-08-10 13:55 ` jamal
2007-08-10 21:39 ` David Miller
2007-08-13 21:47 ` Roland Dreier
2007-08-08 22:20 ` David Miller
2007-08-08 23:23 ` Shirley Ma
2007-08-09 17:49 ` Roland Dreier
2007-08-09 18:16 ` Shirley Ma
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=20070807.160651.98554604.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.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).