Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 21:31:17 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org> Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: polling(4) and rl(4) Message-ID: <20040409183117.GA3431@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040409105503.A35357@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20040409164724.GD2461@ip.net.ua> <20040409105503.A35357@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:55:03AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 07:47:24PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > Hey Luigi, > >=20 > > Have you actually measured the performance of rl(4) with polling(4) > > enabled? With 8139 anomaly of four (register based) TX descriptors >=20 > no, nor i did expect any improvement -- the code was only there > to help when the 8139C+ was supported. But now that happens in > a different driver. >=20 > Re. the removal, I still think it is beneficial in receiving, > (not performancewise, just to avoid livelock), so as a temporary > measure why don't you just short-circuit the logic that enables > polling in the driver rather than ripping it out completely ? >=20 Do you mean it would be okay if I just trimmed the polling support in rl(4) to the RX part only? I actually considered doing this, just wasn't sure if it is good. ;) Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAduv1Ukv4P6juNwoRAssPAJ9QiMqckiATbBQh9VTmveMw4oYsQQCfV/nf 6vi5OE1MbE5v5eNYJY4wZx8= =Y0o4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040409183117.GA3431>