Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20060816.163252.64000941.davem@davemloft.net>
To: linas@austin.ibm.com
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, akpm@osdl.org, jeff@garzik.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, jklewis@us.ibm.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens.Osterkamp@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]: powerpc/cell spidernet bottom half
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060816233028.GO20551@austin.ibm.com>
References: <20060816.143203.11626235.davem@davemloft.net>
	<200608170016.47072.arnd@arndb.de>
	<20060816233028.GO20551@austin.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 860
Lines: 18

From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:30:28 -0500

> Why would you want o do this? It seems like a cruddier strategy 
> than what we can already do  (which is to never get an transmit
> interrupt, as long as the kernel can shove data into the device fast
> enough to keep the queue from going empty.)  The whole *point* of a 
> low-watermark interrupt is to never have to actually get the interrupt, 
> if the rest of the system is on its toes and is supplying data fast
> enough.

As long as TX packets get freed within a certain latency
boundary, this kind of scheme should be fine.
-
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/