Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 00:58:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 00:58:09 -0400 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([212.227.14.2]:7034 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 00:58:00 -0400 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 In-Reply-To: <20011008023118.L726@athlon.random> X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.11-pre3-xfs (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 06:58:27 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20011008023118.L726@athlon.random> you wrote: > You're perfectly right that it's not ok for a generic computing > environment to spend lots of cpu in polling, but it is clear that in a > dedicated router/firewall we can just shutdown the NIC interrupt forever via > disable_irq (no matter if the nic supports hw flow control or not, and > in turn no matter if the kid tries to spam the machine with small > packets) and dedicate 1 cpu to the polling-work with ksoftirqd polling > forever the NIC to deliver maximal routing performance or something like > that. Yes, have a look at the work of the Click Modular Router PPL from MIT, having a Polling Router Module Implementatin which outperforms Linux Kernel Routing by far (according to their paper :) You can find the Link to Click somewhere on my Page: http://www.freefire.org/tools/index.en.php3in the Operating System section (i think) I can recommend the click-paper.pdf Greetings Bernd - 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/