From owner-freebsd-current Sat Oct 6 13:44:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from panzer.kdm.org (panzer.kdm.org [216.160.178.169]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49A037B401 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ken@localhost) by panzer.kdm.org (8.11.6/8.9.1) id f96KiIZ06851; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:44:18 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ken) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:44:18 -0600 From: "Kenneth D. Merry" To: Terry Lambert Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KRIS: FOR YOU TO COMMIT: soft interrupt coelescing Message-ID: <20011006144418.A6779@panzer.kdm.org> References: <3BBF5E49.65AF9D8E@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <3BBF5E49.65AF9D8E@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 12:40:57PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 12:40:57 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Here are patches to three of the Gigabit ethernet drivers to > implement soft interrupt coelescing. I have included patches > for the dc, ti, and vr drivers... the ti driver is by far the > cleanest. > > I don't use Bill Paul's Tigon III driver, so I haven't > included patche for it (the patches should be obvious, > anyway, from these). > > This does in software what the firmware interrupt coelescing > that Bill Paul put in the Tigon II and Tigon III drivers > does, namely, process more packets per interrupt than would > otherwise be processed, and thus reduce interrupt overhead. [ I don't particularly want to get involved in this thread...but... ] Can you explain why the ti(4) driver needs a coalescing patch? It already has in-firmware coalescing paramters that are tuneable by the user. It also already processes all outstanding BDs in ti_rxeof() and ti_txeof(). It isn't terribly clear what you're doing in the patch, since it isn't a context diff. You also never gave any details behind your statement last week: "Because at the time the Tigon II was released, the jumbogram wire format had not solidified. Therefore cards built during that time used different wire data for the jumbogram framing." I asked, in response: "Can you give more details? Did someone decide on a different ethertype than 0x8870 or something? That's really the only thing that's different between a standard ethernet frame and a jumbo frame. (other than the size)" Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@kdm.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message