[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070919.090937.32177545.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hadi@...erus.ca
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kaber@...sh.net, dada1@...mosbay.com, johnpol@....mipt.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC][NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:33:52 -0400
> On Mon, 2007-17-09 at 22:48 -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> > Nothing much has changed from what it was before.
> > The only difference is we let go of the queue lock before grabbing
> > the tx lock which never mattered for LLTX.
> > Once we grab the tx lock it is the same logic and so far is working well
> > on both tg3 and e1000 (which is LLTX).
> > I will continue to retest with net-2.6.24 once you complete rebasing
> > and look around to see if anyone maybe affected.
>
> Ok, this is looking solid with this mornings tree. Tested on a dual core
> xeon with e1000 (LLTX) and a dual core opteron with tg3 (non-LLTX).
> About 100 million packets from udp full throttle on all 4 cpus; i tried
> pulling cables etc while doing this to generate extrenous interupts and
> didnt see any issues.
>
> Shall i submit the patch?
Sure, along with a description as to why you want to make this
change.
I still don't understand the impetus. :)
-
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