From: James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, hadi@cyberus.ca, davem@davemloft.net,
jeff@garzik.org, mandeep.baines@gmail.com, ossthema@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: RFC: possible NAPI improvements to reduce interrupt rates for low traffic rates
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:30:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46E01D16.5000609@katalix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070906153700.57a0c448@oldman>
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> What about the latency that NAPI imposes? Right now there are certain applications that
> don't like NAPI because it add several more microseconds, and this may make it worse.
Latency is something that I think this approach will actually improve,
at the expense of additional polling. Or is it the ksoftirqd scheduling
latency that you are referring to?
> Maybe a per-device flag or tuning parameters (like weight sysfs value)? or some other
> way to set low-latency values.
Yes. I'd like to think good defaults could be derived though, perhaps
based on settings like CONFIG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMER, CONFIG_HZ
and maybe even bogomips / nr_cpus.
--
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-06 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-06 14:16 RFC: possible NAPI improvements to reduce interrupt rates for low traffic rates James Chapman
2007-09-06 14:37 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-09-06 15:30 ` James Chapman [this message]
2007-09-06 15:37 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-09-06 16:07 ` James Chapman
2007-09-06 23:06 ` jamal
2007-09-07 9:31 ` James Chapman
2007-09-07 13:22 ` jamal
2007-09-10 9:20 ` James Chapman
2007-09-10 12:27 ` jamal
2007-09-12 7:04 ` Bill Fink
2007-09-12 12:12 ` jamal
2007-09-12 13:50 ` James Chapman
2007-09-12 14:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-09-12 16:26 ` James Chapman
2007-09-12 16:47 ` Mandeep Baines
2007-09-13 6:57 ` David Miller
2007-09-14 13:14 ` jamal
2007-09-07 21:20 ` Jason Lunz
2007-09-10 9:25 ` James Chapman
2007-09-07 3:55 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2007-09-07 9:38 ` James Chapman
2007-09-08 16:42 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2007-09-10 9:33 ` James Chapman
2007-09-10 12:12 ` jamal
2007-09-08 16:32 ` Andi Kleen
2007-09-10 9:25 ` James Chapman
2007-09-12 15:12 ` David Miller
2007-09-12 16:39 ` James Chapman
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=46E01D16.5000609@katalix.com \
--to=jchapman@katalix.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=mandeep.baines@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ossthema@de.ibm.com \
--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).