Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:35:35 +1100 From: "Sam Wun" <smw2010@gmail.com> To: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: RelEng <re@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Prafulla Deuskar <pdeuskar@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch Message-ID: <ff64092b0611082035u5f7d248dg3465ef8c54160451@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0611081719h31be096eu614d2f2325aff511@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a41acea0611081719h31be096eu614d2f2325aff511@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Without introduced this new patch, can I still use sysctl to maximise its performance like FAST_INTR? S On 11/9/06, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> 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" > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ff64092b0611082035u5f7d248dg3465ef8c54160451>