>
pku.leo@gmail.com wrote on 30/03/2009 09:36:21:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>> <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
>> >
pku.leo@gmail.com wrote on 27/03/2009 11:50:09:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>> >> <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
>> >> > Also set NAPI weight to 64 as this is a common value.
>> >> > This will make the system alot more responsive while
>> >> > ping flooding the ucc_geth ethernet interaface.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > /* Errors and other events */
>> >> > if (ucce & UCCE_OTHER) {
>> >> > if (ucce & UCC_GETH_UCCE_BSY)
>> >> > @@ -3733,7 +3725,7 @@ static int ucc_geth_probe(struct of_device*
>> > ofdev, const struct of_device_id *ma
>> >> > dev->netdev_ops = &ucc_geth_netdev_ops;
>> >> > dev->watchdog_timeo = TX_TIMEOUT;
>> >> > INIT_WORK(&ugeth->timeout_work, ucc_geth_timeout_work);
>> >> > - netif_napi_add(dev, &ugeth->napi, ucc_geth_poll,
>> > UCC_GETH_DEV_WEIGHT);
>> >> > + netif_napi_add(dev, &ugeth->napi, ucc_geth_poll, 64);
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't make sense to have larger napi budget than the size of RX
>> >> BD ring. You can't have more BDs than RX_BD_RING_LEN in backlog for
>> >> napi_poll to process. Increase the RX_BD_RING_LEN if you want to
>> >> increase UCC_GETH_DEV_WEIGHT. However please also provide the
>> >> performance comparison for this kind of change. Thanks
>> >
>> > Bring it up with David Miller. After my initial attempt to just
> increase
>> > weight somewhat, he requested that I hardcoded it to 64. Just read the
>> > whole thread.
>> > If I don't increase weight somewhat, ping -f -l 3 almost halts the
> board.
>> > Logging
>> > in takes forever. These are my "performance numbers".
>>
>> Faster response time is surely good. But it might also mean CPU is
>> not fully loaded. IMHO, throughput is a more important factor for
>> network devices. When you try to optimize the driver, please also
>> consider the throughput change. Thanks.
>
> This particular change isn't about performance, it is about not
> "bricking" the board during heavy traffic. Next step is to optimize
> the driver.
