Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:30:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:30:43 -0500 Received: from daytona.gci.com ([205.140.80.57]:57357 "EHLO daytona.gci.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:30:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leif Sawyer To: Tim Hockin , Jeff Garzik Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: RE: [PATCH] eepro100 - need testers Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:30:12 -0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tim Hockin responded to > Jeff Garzik who wrote: > >> This patch got me thinking about net driver ring sizes in >> general. When you are talking thousands of packets per second >> at 100 mbit, a larger ring size than the average 32-64 seems >> to make sense too. > > Well, the math for the very worst case is something like: > > 100,000,000 bits/sec > /8 = 12500000 bytes/sec > /64 bytes/ping = 195312.5 ping/sec > /100 = 1953 ping/jiffy > rounded to 2048 /2 = 1024 rx buffers per 1/2 jiffie. > > 1024 means you can withstand a wire-speed storm while > interrupting twice per jiffy. Given this, and the ever-upward climb in ethernet speed, what would be the dangers involved in making this a run-time option? As soon as we detect the device, we know what it's max speed is, and we can then build the ring size base on that knowledge. just some ignorant thoughts.. - 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/