[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <476181C1.3060204@myri.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:02:25 -0500
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, joonwpark81@...il.com,
auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: napi fix
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:19:38 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
>> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:13:54 -0500
>>
>>> If the netif_running() check is indeed required to make a device break
>>> out of napi polling and respond to an ifconfig down, then I think the
>>> netif_running() check should be moved up into net_rx_action() to avoid
>>> potential for driver complexity and bugs like the ones you found.
>> That, or something like it, definitely sounds reasonable and much
>> better than putting the check into every driver :-)
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> It is not possible to do netif_running() check in generic code as currently
> written because of the case of devices where a single NAPI object is
> being used to handle two devices. The association between napi and netdevice
> is M to N. There are cases like niu that have multiple NAPI's and one
> netdevice; and devices like sky2 that can have one NAPI and 2 netdevice's.
Ah, now I see. I forgot that not every device has a 1:1::napi:netdev
relationship.
Could we make an optional *dev_state field in the napi structure.
It would be initialized to __LINK_STATE_START. Devices which have
a 1:1 NAPI:netdevice relationship would set it to &netdev->state.
The generic code would then do a test_bit(__LINK_STATE_START,
napi->dev_state), and 1:1 drivers could remove this check.
M:N drivers would pay for a useless (to them) test_bit, and would
have to provide their own netif_running check to get termination
under heavy load.
Just an idea, perhaps there is a better way which is less hacky.
Or perhaps we should just leave things as is.
Drew
--
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