Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:33:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:33:02 -0400 Received: from [208.129.208.52] ([208.129.208.52]:1540 "EHLO xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:32:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: jamal cc: Manfred Spraul , , Ingo Molnar , Andreas Dilger , Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, jamal wrote: > > NAPI seems to be very promising to fix the total system overload case > > (so many packets arrive that despite irq mitigation the system is still > > overloaded). > > > > But the implementation of irq mitigation is driver specific, and a 10 > > millisecond stop is far too long. > > > > violent agreement. The Ingo's solution move the mitigation control into the kernel with the immediate advantage that it'll work right now with existing drivers. I think that the idea of kirqpoll is good but the long term solution should be the move of the mitigation knowledge inside the drivers that will register their own kirqpoll callbacks when they're going to mask irqs. In this case the "intelligence" about irq rates is left in the place where there's more knowledge about the I/O traffic nature. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/