Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:04:44 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: Charles Owens <cowens@greatbaysoftware.com>, Robin Sommer <robin@icir.org>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: igb watchdog timeouts Message-ID: <20110114155704.D27511@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimetnbGRLArCUT%2BoHM94A-BQZnizGVAN%2BQE8Pqz@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100729215649.GB2615@icir.org> <20110103210209.GA13091@icir.org> <4D2E66C4.5090607@greatbaysoftware.com> <AANLkTinxDryptLu%2B7NRnLPLE7716BHw=CZ==jYOb_Q%2BY@mail.gmail.com> <4D2F20BB.5080204@greatbaysoftware.com> <AANLkTimK8VEQLd-m-zPsw8-%2BoBi-oJ5pc5eScmFXmujy@mail.gmail.com> <4D2F71BE.2080801@greatbaysoftware.com> <AANLkTimetnbGRLArCUT%2BoHM94A-BQZnizGVAN%2BQE8Pqz@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Jack Vogel wrote: > Polling has seemed to me to be a way around other problems, problems that > these days > no longer exist. I remember back in the FreeBSD 6 days having interrupt > problems which > of course also led to watchdogs. Polling got rid of that. But now there are > dedicated > MULTIPLE interrupts by using MSIX, so that reason for polling is gone. > > Of course there can still be advantages, reducing interrupts and hence > context switches, > which is why the Linux approach does what it does. Polling helps, if at all, mainly by reducing interrupts and otherwise dropping packets (or for tx, not sending packets promptly, so that the system doesn't become overloaded attempting to not drop packets and to send packets promptly, according to interrupts). The last thing an overloaded system wants is MORE interrupts to tell it that it is overloaded :-). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110114155704.D27511>