On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:15 AM Jose Abreu <jose.ab...@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com>
>
> > By the
> >
> > if ((status & handle_rx) && (chan < priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use)) {
> > stmmac_disable_dma_irq(priv, priv->ioaddr, chan);
> > napi_schedule_irqoff(&ch->rx_napi);
> > }
> >
> > branch directly above? If so, is it possible to have fewer rx than tx
> > queues and miss this?
>
> Yes, it is possible.
And that is not a problem?
>
> > this logic seems more complex than needed?
> >
> > if (status)
> > status |= handle_rx | handle_tx;
> >
> > if ((status & handle_rx) && (chan < priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use)) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > if ((status & handle_tx) && (chan < priv->plat->tx_queues_to_use)) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > status & handle_rx implies status & handle_tx and vice versa.
>
> This is removed in patch 09/10.
>
> > > - if (work_done < budget && napi_complete_done(napi, work_done))
> > > - stmmac_enable_dma_irq(priv, priv->ioaddr, chan);
> > > + if (work_done < budget)
> > > + napi_complete_done(napi, work_done);
> >
> > It does seem odd that stmmac_napi_poll_rx and stmmac_napi_poll_tx both
> > call stmmac_enable_dma_irq(..) independent of the other. Shouldn't the
> > IRQ remain masked while either is active or scheduled? That is almost
> > what this patch does, though not exactly.
>
> After patch 09/10 the interrupts will only be disabled by RX NAPI and
> re-enabled by it again. I can do some tests on whether disabling
> interrupts independently gives more performance but I wouldn't expect so
> because the real bottleneck when I do iperf3 tests is the RX path ...
Sharing the IRQ sounds fine. My only concern was TX-only IRQs in case
more TX than RX queues are configured. If that is possible with this
driver.
