[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1551EAE59135BE47B544934E30FC4FC002AAB9F8@nt-irva-0751.brcm.ad.broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:05:47 -0700
From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>
To: "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
jgarzik@...ox.com, hadi@...erus.ca, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC]: napi_struct V4
David Miller wrote:
> So that ->poll_controller() can process TX acks by just having
> the TX lock and interrupts disabled.
>
> Can you think of another way to process TX acks from absolutely
> any execution context whatsoever? That's what we need and
> preferably in some generic way, and the above is what I came
> up with.
What are we trying to protect against by taking the TX lock before
calling ->poll_controller()?
>
> To be honest I don't think the TX lock contention will matter, and
> even if there were a small cost, the simplicity of the netpoll
> implementation is worth it given how problematic and hard to debug
> netpoll has been in the past.
>
>
There is a measurable difference in oprofile. When passing small
packets, there's a non-trivial difference in throughput.
-
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