From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Sep 15 14:54: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771AE37B429 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inje.iskon.hr (inje.iskon.hr [213.191.128.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A8343E65 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from zec@tel.fer.hr) Received: from tel.fer.hr (zg05-046.dialin.iskon.hr [213.191.138.47]) by mail.iskon.hr (8.11.4/8.11.4/Iskon 8.11.3-1) with ESMTP id g8FLrLS05067; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:53:21 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <3D850168.2A24346@tel.fer.hr> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:53:44 +0200 From: Marko Zec X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Stesin Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bug? VLANs, fxp, Catalyst and link0 story References: <20020915182028.O1070-100000@chour.hostmaster.net.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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