At 09:28 AM 09/08/2000 +0100, you wrote: >> >The mark_bh is already there. it sounds ot me like you are changing timing >> >patterns by causing a cpu stall on the memory bus >> >> No, its not. > >The mark_bh is already there. Its in netif_rx. You are causing additional delays >by causing a stall on the memory bus with the mark_bh. > >> 1) Set up a box with an eepro100 as a second card and modify the driver by >> simply replacing netif_rx() with kfree_skb(). My system is a 200Mhz Pentium > >You've changed the timing patterns. any code change changes the timing. The existing code chokes. So your solution is that there is no solution? 4000 pps is nothing. But its my fault for trying to make a horse out of a camel. Shame on me. I find it interesting that you blame Intel for their docs...how do you explain that there exist drivers for this card that work perfectly well for other OS's? Seems like pretty clear evidence that the deficiency is in the OS, not the card. are there any improvements to these mechanisms in 2.4, or just a lot more features that almost work? DB - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
