From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:59:35 -0700 Message-ID: <42A0A897.5080006@candelatech.com> References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0450BFE8@orsmsx408> <42A0A25C.8000503@candelatech.com> <20050603.114950.119242486.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: john.ronciak@intel.com, Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, jdmason@us.ibm.com, shemminger@osdl.org, hadi@cyberus.ca, mitch.a.williams@intel.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20050603.114950.119242486.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David S. Miller wrote: > From: Ben Greear >>Maybe the poll is disabling the IRQs on the NIC for too long, or something >>like that? > > > In a reply I just sent out to this thread, I postulate that the > jiffies check is hitting earlier with a lower weight value, a quick > look at /proc/net/softnet_stat during their testing will confirm or > deny this theory. That would basically just decrease the work done in the NAPI poll though, so I don't see how that could be the problem, since the 'solution' was to force less work to be done. > It could also just be a simple bug in the dev->quota accounting > somewhere. > > Note that, in all of this, I do not have any objections to providing > a way to configure the dev->weight values. I will be applying Stephen > Hemminger's patches. Good. The more knobs the merrier, so long as they are at least somewhat documented and default to good sane values :) Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com