kat...@jp.yokogawa.com)
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] ixgbe driver causes a delay in brctl addif command.
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 3:40 AM, shouta.ueh...@jp.yokogawa.com wrote:
>
> These results show that almost delay is spent at ioctl(SIOCBRADDBR),
> and usleep_range is called twice to ixgbe
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 3:40 AM, shouta.ueh...@jp.yokogawa.com wrote:
>
> These results show that almost delay is spent at ioctl(SIOCBRADDBR),
> and usleep_range is called twice to ixgbe driver.
> Both of ixgbe_acquire_swfw_sync_X540 and ixgbe_release_swfw_sync_X540 call
> usleep_range(5000, 1)
vel@lists.sourceforge.net; mihoko.tan...@jp.yokogawa.com;
> ryouta.kat...@jp.yokogawa.com
> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] ixgbe driver causes a delay in brctl addif
> command.
>
> > On Jun 18, 2015, at 3:40 AM, shouta.ueh...@jp.yokogawa.com wrote:
> >
> > Both of ixgbe_ac
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
>
> It is part of the interface space that there should a that much delay between
> instances of taking the semaphore.
Sorry, I meant to say: It is part of the interface spec that there should be
that much delay between instances of taking t
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 3:40 AM, shouta.ueh...@jp.yokogawa.com wrote:
>
> Both of ixgbe_acquire_swfw_sync_X540 and ixgbe_release_swfw_sync_X540 call
> usleep_range(5000, 1) just before return. It causes non-operation time
> about 20msec.
> I want to ask you why usleep_range has to be called the
