Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:31:35 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Dieter <freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bge dropping packets issue Message-ID: <20080417152837.E71628@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3c0b01820804170705l9c196d9rff45fa4919ace8c@mail.gmail.com> References: <3c0b01820804160929i76cc04fdy975929e2a04c0368@mail.gmail.com> <200804161456.20823.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <3c0b01820804161328m77704ca0g43077a9718d446d4@mail.gmail.com> <200804161654.22452.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <3c0b01820804161402u3aac4425n41172294ad33a667@mail.gmail.com> <20080417112329.G47027@delplex.bde.org> <3c0b01820804170643w6b771ce9jdfc2dc5b240922b@mail.gmail.com> <20080417145652.J71628@fledge.watson.org> <3c0b01820804170705l9c196d9rff45fa4919ace8c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote: > Robert, alright, this all makes sense. So it seems to me that the first > step to salvation in my world is to turn off DEVICE_POLLING and rely on the > interrupt coalescing that exists on the card. My only concern if this does > work is what impact this has on the overall system. I would generally discourage use of our current DEVICE_POLLING code using modern network devices, as the polling rate as compared to buffer size has changed significantly, meaning that polling rates have to be set ridiculously high. Also, I suspect strongly that it interacts badly with our ithread/scheduling/etc parts, which might lead to difficult to diagnose problems. Interrupt moderation is not as featureful as DEVICE_POLLING, but it is better supported; I'd like to see further work done to allow us to pick up some of the scheduling features for ithreads as well in the future. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080417152837.E71628>