Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:00:08 -0800 From: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch Message-ID: <2a41acea0611101400w5b8cef40ob84ed6de181f3e2c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200611102004.kAAK4iO9027778@lava.sentex.ca> References: <2a41acea0611081719h31be096eu614d2f2325aff511@mail.gmail.com> <200611091536.kA9FaltD018819@lava.sentex.ca> <45534E76.6020906@samsco.org> <200611092200.kA9M0q1E020473@lava.sentex.ca> <200611102004.kAAK4iO9027778@lava.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/10/06, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> wrote: > > Some more tests. I tried again with what was committed to today's > RELENG_6. I am guessing its pretty well the same patch. Polling is > the only way to avoid livelock at a high pps rate. Does anyone know > of any simple tools to measure end to end packet loss ? Polling will > end up dropping some packets and I want to be able to compare. Same > hardware from the previous post. The commit WAS the last patch I posted. SO, making sure I understood you, you are saying that POLLING is doing better than FAST_INTR, or only better than the legacy code that went in with my merge? Jack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea0611101400w5b8cef40ob84ed6de181f3e2c>