[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46681E41.6060700@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:03:29 -0700
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: hadi@...erus.ca
CC: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
kaber@...sh.net, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.
jamal wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 20:47 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> 1) you need (a) well-designed hardware _and_ (b) a smart driver writer
>> to avoid bottlenecking on internal driver locks. As you can see we have
>> both (a) and (b) for tg3 ;-)
>
> How about the following patch which fixes #b for e1000 ;->
> I think the e1000s challenges are related to the gazillion variations of
> boards they support and a little challenge of too many intel cooks.
>
> Auke, why do you need the tx ring lock?
To prevent against multiple entries bumping head & tail at the same time as well
as overwriting the same entries in the tx ring (contention for
next_to_watch/next_to_clean)? It may be unlikely but ripping out the tx ring
lock might not be a good idea, perhaps after we get rid of LLTX in e1000?
to be honest: I'm open for ideas and I'll give it a try, but stuff like this
needs to go through some nasty stress testing (multiple clients, long time)
before I will consider it seriously, but fortunately that's something I can do.
Auke
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists