[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070310023432.GJ521@postel.suug.ch>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:34:32 +0100
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Cc: "Kok, Auke-jan H" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Garzik, Jeff" <jgarzik@...ox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Kok, Auke" <auke@...-projects.org>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] NET: Multiple queue network device support
* Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com> 2007-03-09 15:27
> That's the entire point of this extra locking. enqueue() is going to
> put an skb into a band somewhere that maps to some queue, and there is
> no way to guarantee the skb I retrieve from dequeue() is headed for the
> same queue. Therefore, I need to unlock the queue after I finish
> enqueuing, since having that lock makes little sense to dequeue().
> dequeue() will then grab *a* lock on a queue; it may be the same one we
> had during enqueue(), but it may not be. And the placement of the
> unlock of that queue is exactly where it happens in non-multiqueue,
> which is right before the hard_start_xmit().
The lock is already unlocked after dequeue, from your prio_dequeue():
if (netif_is_multiqueue(sch->dev)) {
queue = q->band2queue[prio];
if (spin_trylock(&sch->dev->egress_subqueue[queue].queue_lock)) {
qdisc = q->queues[prio];
skb = qdisc->dequeue(qdisc);
if (skb) {
sch->q.qlen--;
skb->priority = prio;
spin_unlock(&sch->dev->egress_subqueue[queue].queue_lock);
return skb;
}
spin_unlock(&sch->dev->egress_subqueue[queue].queue_lock);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists