Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
Why would using a timer to hold off the napi_complete() rather than
jiffy count limit the polls per packet to 2?
I was thinking a timer could be used in the way suggested in Jamal's
paper. The driver would do nothing (park) until the timer expires. So
there would be no calls to poll for the duration of the timer. Hence,
this approach would add extra latency not present in a jiffy polling
approach.
Ah, ok. I wasn't planning to test timer-driven polling. :)
Why wouldn't it be efficient? It would usually be done by reading an
"interrupt pending" register.
Reading the "interrupt pending" register would require an MMIO read.
MMIO reads are very expensive. In some systems the latency of an MMIO
read can be 1000x that of an L1 cache access.
Agreed. Testing for any work being available should be as efficient as
possible and would be driver specific.
--
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
