netdev - Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:02:54 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
Cc:	auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	hadi@...erus.ca, jeff@...zik.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

> If the QDISC_RUNNING flag guarantees that only one CPU can call
> dev->hard_start_xmit(), then why do we need to hold netif_tx_lock
> for non-LLTX drivers?

I thought the correct use is to get this lock on clean_tx side which
can get called on a different cpu on rx (which also cleans up slots
for skbs that have finished xmit). Both TX and clean_tx uses the
same tx_ring's head/tail ptrs and should be exclusive. But I don't
find clean tx using this lock in the code, so I am confused :-)

- KK

-
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