RE: [v1 0/6] *** nps_enet fixups ***

[Noam Camus]

From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 8:36 PM


> You should not move TX completion out of NAPI handling, NAPI poll is exactly where it belongs.
>
> If you handle it in hardware interrupt context you have to use
> dev_kfree_skb_irq() which defers the operation to software interrupt context anyways and is thus expensive.

> Whereas if you keep TX completion in your NAPI handler the kfree is handled synchronously and efficiently, as well as making SKB's potentially available for RX reclaim.

I followed "Hardware Architecture" section from:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/napi
and came up with "reduce processing latency" idea.

Anyway, I will restore TX completion back to NAPI poll.

> I'm not applying this series, you are doing with TX handling exactly what we tell people not to do.

I will come up with revised series in v2.

Noam
--
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/