From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:41:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:41:20 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:3719 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:41:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020906.113829.65591342.davem@redhat.com> To: manfred@colorfullife.com Cc: haveblue@us.ibm.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3D78F55C.4020207@colorfullife.com> References: <3D78F55C.4020207@colorfullife.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Manfred Spraul Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 20:35:08 +0200 The second point was that interrupt mitigation must remain enabled, even with NAPI: the automatic mitigation doesn't work with process space limited loads (e.g. TCP: backlog queue is drained quickly, but the system is busy processing the prequeue or receive queue) Not true. NAPI is in fact a %100 replacement for hw interrupt mitigation strategies. The cpu usage elimination afforded by hw interrupt mitigation is also afforded by NAPI and even more so by NAPI. See Jamal's paper. Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com