Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:41:20 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Soekris] Re: bridge with access on both interfaces Message-ID: <59488.1072377680@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:25:49 PST." <20031225102549.A79161@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20031225102549.A79161@xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes: >If you have shared interrupts, and one of the interfaces is not up, you >end up doing a lot of useless calls to sis_stop(), which is terribly >expensive (it even includes a DELAY(1000) call). >At the very least, one should add a 'stopped' flag so that >sis_stop() is only called when necessary -- or possibly even >never at all. > >The second (minor) cause of performance loss are the calls >(not shown above) >to disable and re-enable the interrupts around the driver. These are >completely useless, yet cause some extra PCI transactions. I don't know if it is correct, but at the very least I have thought the same thoughts when I looked at the driver last, but I didn't get time to try out the idea... Somebody with some spare time should look at this... Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?59488.1072377680>