From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 9 04:35:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6956B16A40F for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 04:35:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smw2010@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.193]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE10C43D5C for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 04:35:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from smw2010@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id i11so52347nzh for ; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:35:36 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Oa0lbQtCKFGsW7k2cpIyWN2MSkD6QfzMy6srJ7kMC9zEevxvrm5iZmUverUCwdwZHsz9/MlQ2IVA+TQIqPxJs0NeJC2Ee7ZSB9AH28o59RD80cHDFg2+gKs+cLgOj/nCWs5DK//oSOI3nkToKyeNoZ2glW7EC2plprt5giF043c= Received: by 10.65.239.14 with SMTP id q14mr496113qbr.1163046935560; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.241.10 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:35:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:35:35 +1100 From: "Sam Wun" To: "Jack Vogel" In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0611081719h31be096eu614d2f2325aff511@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2a41acea0611081719h31be096eu614d2f2325aff511@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Scott Long , RelEng , John Baldwin , freebsd-net , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:35:39 -0000 Without introduced this new patch, can I still use sysctl to maximise its performance like FAST_INTR? S On 11/9/06, Jack Vogel wrote: > > This patch is an evolution of the last one I sent out. It has > a couple of minor corrections, like a bad forward decl in > the header. > > The last patch has had quite a bit of testing and all reports > have been positive. The only complaint was from Gleb who > says he needs to keep his beloved infinite for loop in the > interrupt handler, well I have a better one for you Gleb, keep > reading. > > I have also been doing some extreme stress testing using > SmartBits, and discovered the driver as it stands is really > not able to take extreme receive side pounding, Scott > pointed out that this is why the FAST_INTR work was done :) > > There were some people that had stability issues with that > work, but there were also many that did not. I actually > merged the FAST code onto my last patch, and ran the > SB stress and found it really was able to gracefully handle > that load, way to go Scott :) > > I've pondered this situation, and this patch I'm including here > today is the result. Here's what it does: > > If you drop it in place, compile it, and go... you will get the > code that has been tested for a week, it uses the older > style interrupts, it has the watchdog and other SMP fixes > so its been proven. > > BUT, I've added the FAST_INTR changes back into the code, so > if you go into your Makefile and add -DEM_FAST_INTR you will > then get the taskqueue stuff. > > So, Gleb, rather than replace the infinite for loop that no one > thinks is a good idea, you can just define FAST_INTR again, > and you should be good to go. > > I see this as the best thing for the 6.2 RELEASE, it lets us > keep moving forward, people that want max performance > can define EM_FAST_INTR and help us wring out any > problems, it also will mean that I will have our Intel test > group start using this code. But for those that just want > a stable driver the standard compile will still give them that. > > The patch I'm including is against BETA3. Let me know of > your concerns or issues. > > Cheers, > > Jack > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > >