From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: dada1@cosmosbay.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:20:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080227072041.GA4000@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080226.182120.183405235.davem@davemloft.net>
On 27-02-2008 03:21, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:51:52 +0100
>
>> Following patch directly calls netif_receive_skb() and avoids lot of
>> atomic operations.
>> (atomic_inc(&dev->refcnt), set_and_set_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED, &n->state), ...
>> atomic_dec(&dev->refcnt)...), cache line ping-pongs on device refcnt,
>> but also softirq overhead.
>>
>> This gives a nice boost on tbench for example (5 % on my machine)
>
> My only concern is stack usage.
...
I wonder why overloading with net processing is no concern here?
There would be no napi control around this netif_receive_skb().
Another concern might be a code which depends on softirq context
here (unless it was checked already)?
Regards,
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-27 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-21 18:51 [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx() Eric Dumazet
2008-02-21 20:14 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-21 23:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-02-22 10:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-27 2:21 ` David Miller
2008-02-27 7:20 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2008-02-27 7:23 ` David Miller
2008-02-27 7:34 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-01 10:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-04 4:55 ` David Miller
2008-03-04 5:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-03-04 6:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 10:29 ` David Miller
2008-03-23 18:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 19:15 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-29 1:36 ` David Miller
2008-03-29 8:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-29 23:54 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 6:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 9:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 10:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-01 9:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-04-03 14:06 ` Pavel Machek
2008-04-03 16:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:08 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 10:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 11:02 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 11:36 ` poor network loopback performance and scalability (was: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()) Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21 3:24 ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21 3:38 ` poor network loopback performance and scalability David Miller
2008-04-21 8:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21 8:16 ` David Miller
2008-04-21 10:19 ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21 10:22 ` David Miller
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=20080227072041.GA4000@ff.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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).