Hi! > >Anyway... since you asked. I belive I have way to disable NAPI / tx > >coalescing in the driver. Unfortunately, locking is missing on the rx > >path, and needs to be extended to _irqsave variant on tx path. > > I have just replied to a previous thread about that...
Yeah, please reply to David's mail where he describes why it can't work. > >So patch currently looks like this (hand edited, can't be > >applied, got it working few hours ago). Does it look acceptable? > > > >I'd prefer this to go after the patch that pulls common code to single > >place, so that single place needs to be patched. Plus I guess I should > >add ifdefs, so that more advanced NAPI / tx coalescing code can be > >reactivated when it is fixed. Trivial fixes can go on top. Does that > >sound like a plan? > > Hmm, what I find strange is that, just this code is running since a > long time on several platforms and Chip versions. No raise condition > have been found or lock protection problems (also proving look > mechanisms). Well, it works better for me when I disable CONFIG_SMP. It is normal that locking problems are hard to reproduce :-(. > Pavel, I ask you sorry if I missed some problems so, if you can > (as D. Miller asked) to send us a cover letter + all patches > I will try to reply soon. I can do also some tests if you ask > me that! I could run on 3.x and 4.x but I cannot promise you > benchmarks. Actually... I have questions here. David normally pulls from you (can I have a address of your git tree?). Could you apply these to your git? [PATCH] stmmac ethernet: unify locking [PATCH] stmmac: simplify flag assignment [PATCH] stmmac: cleanup documenation, make it match reality They are rather trivial and independend, I'm not sure what cover letter would say, besides "simple fixes". Then I can re-do the reset on top of that... > >Which tree do you want patches against? > > > >https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/ ? > > I think that bug fixing should be on top of net.git but I let Miller > to decide. Hmm. It is "only" a performance problem (40msec delays).. I guess -next is better target. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
