Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20060816.134640.115912460.davem@davemloft.net>
To: jeff@garzik.org
Cc: linas@austin.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, jklewis@us.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de,
       Jens.Osterkamp@de.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]: powerpc/cell spidernet bottom half
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <44E38157.4070805@garzik.org>
References: <44E34825.2020105@garzik.org>
	<20060816203043.GJ20551@austin.ibm.com>
	<44E38157.4070805@garzik.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1076
Lines: 28

From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:34:31 -0400

> Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > I was under the impression that NAPI was for the receive side only.
> 
> That depends on the driver implementation.

What Jeff is trying to say is that TX reclaim can occur in
the NAPI poll routine, and in fact this is what the vast
majority of NAPI drivers do.

It also makes the locking simpler.

In practice, the best thing seems to be to put both RX and TX
work into ->poll() and have a very mild hw interrupt mitigation
setting programmed into the chip.

I'm not familiar with the spidernet TX side interrupt capabilities
so I can't say whether that is something that can be directly
implied.  In fact, I get the impression that spidernet is limited
in some way and that's where all the strange approaches are coming
from :)
-
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/