> Quoting Shirley Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [openib-general] IPOIB NAPI > > Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/27/2007 02:41:44 PM: > > > > So the IBV_CQ_REPORT_MISSED_EVENTS has been part of OFED-1.2 already? I > > can > > > generate the patch for all ULPs to use this for review. Do you need me to > > > do that? > > > > No, it's not in OFED 1.2 or the upstream kernel. And no one has > > implemented it for userspace (and I'm somewhat reluctant to break the > > ABI at this point without some performance numbers to motivate making > > this API change). > > > > Have the NAPI performance problems with ehca been resolved? We could > > probably merge IPoIB NAPI for 2.6.22 then, which would pull in the > > kernel changes at least. > > > > - R. > We have addressed the NAPI performance issues with ehca driver. I believe the > patches have been upper stream. However the test results show that it's > better to delay poll again to next NAPI interval, something like this: > > poll-cq > notify-cq, if missed_event && netif_rx_reschedule() > return 1 > > vs. > poll-cq, > notify-cq, if missed_event && netif_rx_reschedule() > poll again > return 0 > > It seems ehca delivering packet much faster than other HCAs. So poll again > would stay in the loop for many many times. So the above changes doesn't > impact other HCAs, I would recommand it. I saw same implementations on other > ethernet drivers.
I'm confused. Which one is faster? -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general