Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
smw2010 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 9 04:35:39 UTC 2006
Without introduced this new patch, can I still use sysctl to maximise its
performance like FAST_INTR?
On 11/9/06, Jack Vogel <jfvogel at gmail.com> wrote:
> This patch is an evolution of the last one I sent out. It has
> a couple of minor corrections, like a bad forward decl in
> the header.
> The last patch has had quite a bit of testing and all reports
> have been positive. The only complaint was from Gleb who
> says he needs to keep his beloved infinite for loop in the
> interrupt handler, well I have a better one for you Gleb, keep
> I have also been doing some extreme stress testing using
> SmartBits, and discovered the driver as it stands is really
> not able to take extreme receive side pounding, Scott
> pointed out that this is why the FAST_INTR work was done :)
> There were some people that had stability issues with that
> work, but there were also many that did not. I actually
> merged the FAST code onto my last patch, and ran the
> SB stress and found it really was able to gracefully handle
> that load, way to go Scott :)
> I've pondered this situation, and this patch I'm including here
> today is the result. Here's what it does:
> If you drop it in place, compile it, and go... you will get the
> code that has been tested for a week, it uses the older
> style interrupts, it has the watchdog and other SMP fixes
> so its been proven.
> BUT, I've added the FAST_INTR changes back into the code, so
> if you go into your Makefile and add -DEM_FAST_INTR you will
> then get the taskqueue stuff.
> So, Gleb, rather than replace the infinite for loop that no one
> thinks is a good idea, you can just define FAST_INTR again,
> and you should be good to go.
> I see this as the best thing for the 6.2 RELEASE, it lets us
> keep moving forward, people that want max performance
> can define EM_FAST_INTR and help us wring out any
> problems, it also will mean that I will have our Intel test
> group start using this code. But for those that just want
> a stable driver the standard compile will still give them that.
> The patch I'm including is against BETA3. Let me know of
> your concerns or issues.
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-net