From owner-freebsd-net Tue Jul 3 6:46:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.kebne.se (mail.kebne.se [212.209.134.151]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF02237B401; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:46:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anders.lowinger@xelerated.com) Received: from xelerated.com (XEL-ANDERSLO01 [10.0.9.55]) by mail.kebne.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 31DSB5TH; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:46:46 +0200 Message-ID: <3B41CC2C.6050607@xelerated.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:44:12 +0200 From: Anders Lowinger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010628 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Jeffrey Hsu , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fastforwarding? References: <200107030937.LAA44045@info.iet.unipi.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > you are right, i meant among 100Mbit chips... Can't we just mask the IRQ while in the IRQ handler so we ignore more IRQ's? Then before we leave the IRQ handler we check if there is any more packets via polling. The number of packets that should be routed needs to be tunable, as well as an upper limit on how many IRQ's there may be per second to allow other processes to run. Of course that don't work that well if it is a shared IRQ. I would suggest that all NIC's in which you should route between should have the same IRQ to get some fairness. -Anders To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message