On 13/06/2013 11:00, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 06/13/2013 04:13 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a
On 06/13/2013 04:13 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There
On 06/13/2013 04:13 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait
On 13/06/2013 11:00, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 06/13/2013 04:13 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better
way to test for the
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Eliezer Tamir
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
>
> > depends on X86_TSC
>
> Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better
> way to test for the accuracy you need, or if the issue is lack
From: Eliezer Tamir
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
> depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better
way to test for the accuracy you need, or if the issue is lack of a proper
API for cycle counter reading, fix that rather than add ugly
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better
way to test for the accuracy you need, or if the issue is lack of a proper
API for cycle counter reading, fix
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better
way to test for the
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before.
Remove NET_LL_RX_POLL from the config menu.
Change default to y.
Busy polling still needs to be enabled at runtime via sysctl.
Signed-off-by: Eliezer Tamir
---
net/Kconfig | 11 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/Kconfig b/net/Kconfig
index
Remove NET_LL_RX_POLL from the config menu.
Change default to y.
Busy polling still needs to be enabled at runtime via sysctl.
Signed-off-by: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
---
net/Kconfig | 11 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git
12 matches
Mail list logo
