From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266155AbUH1C1t (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:27:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268102AbUH1C1s (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:27:48 -0400 Received: from 67.107.199.112.ptr.us.xo.net ([67.107.199.112]:51192 "EHLO hathawaymix.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266155AbUH1C1r (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:27:47 -0400 From: Shane Hathaway To: Chris Leech Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000 rx buffer allocation Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:27:48 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040826181843.342da7a3.davem@redhat.com> <41b516cb04082711363a009dbc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <41b516cb04082711363a009dbc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408272027.49059.shane@hathawaymix.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 27 August 2004 12:36 pm, Chris Leech wrote: > As for moving the allocations out of the hard interrupt context, e1000 > was one of several drivers that tried that a few years back by using > tasklets. What I found is that if you split the allocation from the > receive processing, it's far to easy to generate an interrupt load > which starves the skb allocations. The result is that you > continuously use all of the buffers then stall while they all get > replaced, and performance is horrible. But if the patch works for > your network load ... We're getting 6000 interrupts per second, but the box handles it with ease. We're getting zero loss now, but I guess with slower hardware or fewer buffers, scheduling would be a problem. > A better approach for improving jumbo frame allocations might be to > use multiple smaller buffers for each receive, something the PRO/1000 > hardware can do but the e1000 driver has never taken advantage of. Yes, that would be a far better solution. I had no idea the card could do that. Are there specs on this hardware somewhere? Although my patch works, I don't want to stick with a temporary solution. Shane