Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:53:44 +0200 From: Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr> To: Andrew Stesin <stesin@breaker.tormoz.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bug? VLANs, fxp, Catalyst and link0 story Message-ID: <3D850168.2A24346@tel.fer.hr> References: <20020915182028.O1070-100000@chour.hostmaster.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Stesin wrote: > > > Another problem is: as soon as I remove "link0" from ifconfigs for > > > "carrier" interfaces fxp0 and fxp1 - again it doesn't work. > > > > That's interesting. I've never needed link0 for any fxp cards before, > > and I'm not really sure what the microcode is good for. (Sure, I've > > read the docs, but they don't say _when_ you should use it and what the > > advantages and disadvantages are.) You can find a short discussion pro and contra some aspects of interrupt coalescing at http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/papers/zec-mikuc-zagar-02.pdf (the measurements were performed on FreeBSD 4.4 with fxp microcode). The docs for the original fxp patch are also slightly more detailed than the current manpage. See http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/BSD/fxp/index.html Regards, Marko > The only visible (for now) difference is appearance of lines: > > fxp0: Microcode loaded, int_delay: 1000 usec bundle_max: 6 > fxp0: Microcode loaded, int_delay: 1000 usec bundle_max: 6 > fxp1: Microcode loaded, int_delay: 1000 usec bundle_max: 6 > fxp1: Microcode loaded, int_delay: 1000 usec bundle_max: 6 > > at the bottom of kernel boot output. I didn't do any testing, though - > maybe it will either reduce interrupt load or somewhat increase > throughoutput? Or maybe loading microcode makes Intel chips behave in > somewhat more "standard", expected way? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D850168.2A24346>