On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now test it again with the disk interrupt being shared with the
> network card.
>
> Doesn't happen? It sure does. [...]
yes, disk IRQs might be delayed in that case. Without this mechanizm there
is a lockup.
> Which is why I like the NAPI approach. If somebody overloads my
> network card, my USB camera doesn't stop working.
i agree that NAPI is a better approach. And IRQ overload does not happen
on cards that have hardware-based irq mitigation support already. (and i
should note that those cards will likely perform even faster with NAPI.)
> I don't disagree with your patch as a last resort when all else fails,
> but I _do_ disagree with it as a network load limiter.
okay - i removed those parts already (kpolld) in today's patch. (It
initially was an experiment to prove that this is the only problem we are
facing under such loads.)
Ingo
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:29 EST