[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1190677099.4264.37.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:38:19 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, krkumar2@...ibm.com,
johnpol@....mipt.ru, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, kaber@...sh.net,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, jagana@...ibm.com,
Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se, rick.jones2@...com, xma@...ibm.com,
gaagaan@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com,
mcarlson@...adcom.com, jeff@...zik.org, mchan@...adcom.com,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com,
tgraf@...g.ch, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, sri@...ibm.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] [NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock
On Mon, 2007-24-09 at 15:57 -0700, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
> I've looked at that as a candidate to use. The lock for enqueue would
> be needed when actually placing the skb into the appropriate software
> queue for the qdisc, so it'd be quick.
The enqueue is easy to comprehend. The single device queue lock should
suffice. The dequeue is interesting:
Maybe you can point me to some doc or describe to me the dequeue aspect;
are you planning to have an array of txlocks per, one per ring?
How is the policy to define the qdisc queues locked/mapped to tx rings?
cheers,
jamal
-
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