Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20070824.144343.95051903.davem@davemloft.net>
To: linas@austin.ibm.com
Cc: ossthema@de.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, tklein@de.ibm.com,
       themann@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, raisch@de.ibm.com, meder@de.ibm.com,
       stefan.roscher@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070824164541.GG4282@austin.ibm.com>
References: <200708241559.17055.ossthema@de.ibm.com>
	<20070824164541.GG4282@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: 672
Lines: 17

From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:45:41 -0500

> In the end, I just let it be, and let the system work as a
> busy-beaver, with the high interrupt rate. Is this a wise thing to
> do?

The tradeoff is always going to be latency vs. throughput.

A sane default should defer enough to catch multiple packets coming in
at something close to line rate, but not so much that latency unduly
suffers.
-
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/