(trimmed CC to just netdev)
> > One of our engineers (on the I/O AT team) has been tasked with modifying
> > the Linux kernel to properly support multiple hardware queues (both TX and
> > RX). We'll make sure that he looks at the netpoll interface as part of
> > that process.
>
> Might I ask wh
Andy Grover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the guy. I'm not sure when he'll
be working on this; it's somewhere in his TODO pile.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, John W. Linville wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 04:44:56PM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
>
> > One of our engineers (on the I/O AT team) has been taske
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 04:44:56PM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
> One of our engineers (on the I/O AT team) has been tasked with modifying
> the Linux kernel to properly support multiple hardware queues (both TX and
> RX). We'll make sure that he looks at the netpoll interface as part of
> that p
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Neil Horman wrote:
> Hey, as promised, I've done some rudimentary performance benchmarking on
> various
> ways that we have talked about to solve this problem. As I previously
> mentioned
We see the same results here, Neil. However, we've got a much less
invasive patch
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:06:00PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:42:14AM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 17:13 -0700, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > Any further thoughts on this guys? I still think my last solution
> > > solves all of
> > > the netpoll pro
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:42:14AM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 17:13 -0700, Neil Horman wrote:
> > Any further thoughts on this guys? I still think my last solution
> > solves all of
> > the netpoll problems, and isn't going to have any noticable impact on
> > performance.
On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 17:13 -0700, Neil Horman wrote:
> Any further thoughts on this guys? I still think my last solution
> solves all of
> the netpoll problems, and isn't going to have any noticable impact on
> performance.
>
I haven't had time to evaluate performance on your patch (sorry!), but
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:29:00PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> ==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Mitch Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> adds:
>
> mitch.a.williams> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:44 -0700, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> That patch locks
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:23:56AM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:54 -0700, John W. Linville wrote:
>
> > Pedantic objection, but I think this would read easier w/o the extra
> > newline before disable_irq.
>
> Heh. I prefer to have a newline between declarations and cod
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:54 -0700, John W. Linville wrote:
> Pedantic objection, but I think this would read easier w/o the extra
> newline before disable_irq.
Heh. I prefer to have a newline between declarations and code. The
real problem is the position of the #ifdef -- that's what makes it
d
==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Mitch Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> adds:
mitch.a.williams> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:44 -0700, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> That patch locks around the tx clean routine. As such, it doesn't
>> prevent the problem.
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:44 -0700, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> That patch locks around the tx clean routine. As such, it doesn't
> prevent
> the problem.
The call to netif_rx_schedule_prep provides locking because it sets the
__LINK_STATE_RX_SCHED bit atomically. The spinlock around
e1000_clean_tx_irq
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:44:54PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> ==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> adds:
>
> auke-jan.h.kok> Hi,
>
> auke-jan.h.kok> we're not too happy with this as it puts a branch
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:25:29AM -0700, Auke Kok wrote:
> @@ -4584,10 +4584,25 @@ static void
> e1000_netpoll(struct net_device *netdev)
> {
> struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
> + int budget = 0;
> +
> + disable_irq(adapter->p
==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> adds:
auke-jan.h.kok> Hi,
auke-jan.h.kok> we're not too happy with this as it puts a branch right in
auke-jan.h.kok> the regular receive path. We haven't ran the numbers on it
a
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:05:22AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
Matt, any ideas on this?
Not at the moment.
how about this for a solution? It doesn't make netpoll any more robust, but I
think in the interests of efficiency it would be fair to require that, when
netpolled, a
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:05:22AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > > Matt, any ideas on this?
> >
> > Not at the moment.
>
> how about this for a solution? It doesn't make netpoll any more robust, but I
> think in the interests of efficiency it would be fair to require that, when
> netpolled
>
> > Matt, any ideas on this?
>
> Not at the moment.
how about this for a solution? It doesn't make netpoll any more robust, but I
think in the interests of efficiency it would be fair to require that, when
netpolled, a driver must receive frames on the same net device for which it was
polled
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:42:59PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> ==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> adds:
>
> auke-jan.h.kok> Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> ==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NA
==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> adds:
auke-jan.h.kok> Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> ==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <[EMAIL
>> PROTECTED]> adds:
auke-jan.h.kok> Neil Horman
Jeff Moyer wrote:
==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> adds:
auke-jan.h.kok> Neil Horman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:39:25AM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 09:52 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
auke-jan.
==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Mitch Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> adds:
mitch> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 09:52 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>> I've been speaking about this fix with a Jeff Moyer, and we've come up with
>> some
>&g
==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> adds:
auke-jan.h.kok> Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:39:25AM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 09:52 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
auke-jan.
Neil Horman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:39:25AM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 09:52 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
[snip]
However, just for the sake of correctness (and paranoia), I'll whip up
another patch that does this check.
Thanks for the quick feedback!
Regar
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:39:25AM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 09:52 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > I've been speaking about this fix with a Jeff Moyer, and we've come up with
> > some
> > concerns regarding its implementation. Specifically the call to
> > adapter->clean_r
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 09:52 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> I've been speaking about this fix with a Jeff Moyer, and we've come up with
> some
> concerns regarding its implementation. Specifically the call to
> adapter->clean_rx in the case of the e1000 driver is rather a layering
> violation in the
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 04:11:25PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> Netpoll was broken due to the earlier addition of multiqueue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mitch Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c |9 -
> 1 files c
Netpoll was broken due to the earlier addition of multiqueue.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c |9 -
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000
28 matches
Mail list logo
