Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 1999 06:25:04 +0000 | From | Steve Underwood <> | Subject | Re: [Q]: Linux and real device drivers |
| |
Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Jamie" == Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> writes: > > Jamie> For high-speed packet networking, under heavy load, it's > Jamie> possible that timer-scheduled polling gives less overhead than > Jamie> packet driven interrupts. > > Jamie> A card that can be told "don't interrupt me for N us after > Jamie> receiving the next packet, unless you hit the high water mark" > Jamie> would be even better. > > Thats exactly what some Gigabit Ethernet cards do.
A number of newer devices do this. It has benefits, but it has a downside too. It imposes significant extra latency when there is just a light load, which can hurt performance on transactional traffic. A better scheme might be more like the 16550 UART. Interrupt if you hit the high tide point, or the wire goes quiet for a short while. Short here can mean very short. This gives more interrupts under light load, when you probably have plenty of spare CPU cycles to deal them. When the load increases the interrupt rate drops. I haven't seen an Ethernet chip which works in that way, but then I haven't studied them all.
Steve
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |