On 9/12/07, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if you compare this to non-NAPI driver the same softirq
> overhead happens. The problem is that for many older devices disabling IRQ's
> require an expensive non-cached PCI access. Smarter, newer devices
> all use MSI which is pure edge
Cool. I'll try to see if I can clock my pc lower and run the
experiments again. I'll measure cpu utilization also this time around.
That should be useful for extrapolating.
Regards,
Mandeep
On 9/4/07, Daniele Venzano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Message d'origine -
> De: Mandeep Singh B
On 9/4/07, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-09 at 20:20 -0700, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> > I didn't see much saving in interrupts on my machine (too fast, I guess).
>
> You could try the idea suggested by Dave earlier and just turn interupts
> for every nth packet. That shou
On 8/29/07, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-28-08 at 21:43 -0700, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> > I interpret this to mean that the interrupt gets generates after a packet
> > is transferred to the TFIFO on the NIC and the next packet in the ring is
> > NULL.
>
> iow, when tx tran
