From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:07:53 -0700 Message-ID: <46CF1069.7090406@hp.com> References: <200708241559.17055.ossthema@de.ibm.com> <20070824153703.GN5592@sgi.com> <200708241747.16592.ossthema@de.ibm.com> <20070824085203.42f4305c@freepuppy.rosehill.hemminger.net> <20070824165110.GH4282@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Jan-Bernd Themann , Thomas Klein , Marcus@ozlabs.org, Jan-Bernd Themann , netdev , linux-kernel , Christoph Raisch , linux-ppc , akepner@sgi.com, Eder , Stefan Roscher To: Linas Vepstas Return-path: Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]:37595 "EHLO palrel10.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751219AbXHXRJZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:09:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070824165110.GH4282@austin.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Just to be clear, in the previous email I posted on this thread, I > described a worst-case network ping-pong test case (send a packet, wait > for reply), and found out that a deffered interrupt scheme just damaged > the performance of the test case. Since the folks who came up with the > test case were adamant, I turned off the defferred interrupts. > While defferred interrupts are an "obvious" solution, I decided that > they weren't a good solution. (And I have no other solution to offer). Sounds exactly like the default netperf TCP_RR test and any number of other benchmarks. The "send a request, wait for reply, send next request, etc etc etc" is a rather common application behaviour afterall. rick jones