From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Virtio draft IV: the net driver Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:21:33 +1000 Message-ID: <1184206893.6005.669.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1183522765.6110.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1183524053.6110.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200707111245.40717.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20070711.134447.39159166.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070711.134447.39159166.davem@davemloft.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: David Miller Cc: borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cotte@de.ibm.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:44 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Christian Borntraeger > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:45:40 +0200 > > > Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell: > > > +static void receive_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb, > > [...] > > > + netif_rx(skb); > > > > In the NAPI case, we should use netif_receive_skb, no? > > NAPI doesn't make sense for virtual devices, my Sun LDOM nework > driver won't use NAPI either. > > It's also too cumbersome to use NAPI with the way virtualized > network drivers work (multiple ports, each with an interrupt > source, not just one) until the NAPI split patches are ported > and applied upstream and that won't be for a while. Dave, I think you're the only one (so far?) with multiple irqs. It's not clear that guest-controlled interrupt mitigation is the best approach for virtual devices, but at the moment it doesn't hurt. Cheers, Rusty.