On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, saeed bishara
> wrote:
>> Dan,
>>
>> isn't this issue similar to direct io case?
>> can you please look at the following article
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/322795/
>
> I guess it's similar, but the NET_DMA
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, saeed bishara wrote:
> Dan,
>
> isn't this issue similar to direct io case?
> can you please look at the following article
> http://lwn.net/Articles/322795/
I guess it's similar, but the NET_DMA dma api violation is more
blatant. The same thread that requested D
Dan,
isn't this issue similar to direct io case?
can you please look at the following article
http://lwn.net/Articles/322795/
regarding performance improvement using NET_DMA, I don't have concrete
numbers, but it should be around 15-20%. my system is i/o coherent.
saeed
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM, saeed bishara
> wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I'm using net_dma on my system and I achieve meaningful performance
>> boost when running Iperf receive.
>>
>> As far as I know the net_dma is used by many embedded sys
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM, saeed bishara wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I'm using net_dma on my system and I achieve meaningful performance
> boost when running Iperf receive.
>
> As far as I know the net_dma is used by many embedded systems out
> there and might effect their performance.
> Can you pl
Per commit "77873803363c net_dma: mark broken" net_dma is no longer used
and there is no plan to fix it.
This is the mechanical removal of bits in CONFIG_NET_DMA ifdef guards.
Reverting the remainder of the net_dma induced changes is deferred to
subsequent patches.
Cc: Dave Jiang
Cc: Vinod Koul
6 matches
Mail list logo
