RE: arm: Optimization for ethernet MAC handling at91_ether.c

[James Kosin]

On 1/12/2010 11:40 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> CC to netdev
> 
> Le 12/01/2010 16:39, James Kosin a écrit :
>> Everyone,
>>
>> Since, a AT91_EMAC_TUND only happens when the transmitter is unable to
>> transfer the frame in time for a frame to be sent.  It makes sense to
>> RETRY the packet in this condition in the ISR.
>> Or would this overcomplicate a simple task?
>>                 ... see below ...
>>
> ...
> 
>>
>> ...
>> I do know there needs to be a bit more code then to handle the
>> successful case below this; but, this is enough to understand what I am
>> talking about.  The UNDERRUN error should happen infrequently and in
>> ideal circumstances not happen at all.
>>  
> 
> 
> If this happens once in a while, why do you want driver to retry the transmit ?

(a)  It would improve performance by allowing the ISR to handle the re-transmit in this case.
(b)  It would help in the case of small glitches that may happen from external SDRAM without taxing the polling required to handle the re-transmit of the packet... ie: overhead required to re-queue and initiate a packet delivery... since the packet is already scheduled for delivery now.

James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/