From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [net-next 03/10] ixgbe: Drop the TX work limit and instead just leave it to budget Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:30:47 -0700 Message-ID: <4E528437.5060302@intel.com> References: <1313911761-11709-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <1313911761-11709-4-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <1313935304.3142.22.camel@deadeye> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Kirsher , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:53694 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751432Ab1HVQdo (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:33:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1313935304.3142.22.camel@deadeye> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/21/2011 07:01 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 00:29 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >> From: Alexander Duyck >> >> This change makes it so that the TX work limit is now obsolete. Instead of >> using it we can instead rely on the NAPI budget for the number of packets >> we should clean per interrupt. The advantage to this approach is that it >> results in a much more balanced work flow since the same number of RX and >> TX packets should be cleaned per interrupts. > [...] > > This seems kind of sensible, but it's not how Dave has been recommending > people to account for TX work in NAPI. > > Ben. > I wasn't aware there was a recommended approach. Could you tell me more about it? As I stated in the patch description this approach works very well for me, especially in routing workloads since it typically keeps the TX clean-up in polling as long as the RX is in polling. Thanks, Alex