On 6/22/2015 4:35 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: achiad shochat
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:35:37 +0300
Hello Dave,
In mlx5 the RX processing is broken down into two stages:
1) Hand to kernel SKBs of completed RX packets - @mlx5e_poll_rx_cq()
2) Allocate and post to HW new RX buffers - @mlx5e_po
From: achiad shochat
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:35:37 +0300
> Hello Dave,
>
> In mlx5 the RX processing is broken down into two stages:
> 1) Hand to kernel SKBs of completed RX packets - @mlx5e_poll_rx_cq()
> 2) Allocate and post to HW new RX buffers - @mlx5e_post_rx_wqes()
>
> Would handling of
Hello Dave,
In mlx5 the RX processing is broken down into two stages:
1) Hand to kernel SKBs of completed RX packets - @mlx5e_poll_rx_cq()
2) Allocate and post to HW new RX buffers - @mlx5e_post_rx_wqes()
Would handling of TX completions in between stages (1) and (2) be OK?
On 21 June 2015 at 20
From: Or Gerlitz
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:26:22 +0300
> From: Achiad Shochat
>
> For better round trip latency, handle rx completions before
> tx completions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Achiad Shochat
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed
> Signed-off-by: Or Gerlitz
I completely disagree with this chan
From: Achiad Shochat
For better round trip latency, handle rx completions before
tx completions.
Signed-off-by: Achiad Shochat
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed
Signed-off-by: Or Gerlitz
---
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_txrx.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletion
