On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 07:47:24PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > Hey Luigi, > > Have you actually measured the performance of rl(4) with polling(4) > enabled? With 8139 anomaly of four (register based) TX descriptors
no, nor i did expect any improvement -- the code was only there to help when the 8139C+ was supported. But now that happens in a different driver. Re. the removal, I still think it is beneficial in receiving, (not performancewise, just to avoid livelock), so as a temporary measure why don't you just short-circuit the logic that enables polling in the driver rather than ripping it out completely ? cheers luigi (rushing out for dinner) > it's becoming a royal pain in the ass with polling(4) enabled -- > the TX performance just sucks -- I could only get the comparable > results with HZ=5000, which is overheating my CPU. My suggestion > is to drop polling(4) support from the rl(4) driver completely. > > Are there any objections? Has anybody got different results with > rl(4) and polling(4) enabled? > > Having it in re(4) is of course a good thing. ;) > > As an aside, I've started working on the ``[-]polling'' option for > ifconfig(8) that, when done, will allow changing the polling status > of individual interfaces in run-time, e.g., the following command > will disable polling on nge0: > > ifconfig nge0 -polling > > > Cheers, > -- > Ruslan Ermilov > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FreeBSD committer _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
