[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071008.140522.57183793.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hadi@...erus.ca
Cc: peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, 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
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:34:50 -0400
> The brain-block i am having is the parallelization aspect of it.
> Whatever scheme it is - it needs to ensure the scheduler works as
> expected. For example, if it was a strict prio scheduler i would expect
> that whatever goes out is always high priority first and never ever
> allow a low prio packet out at any time theres something high prio
> needing to go out. If i have the two priorities running on two cpus,
> then i cant guarantee that effect.
> IOW, i see the scheduler/qdisc level as not being split across parallel
> cpus. Do i make any sense?
Picture it like N tubes you stick packets into, and the tubes are
processed using DRR.
So packets within a tube won't be reordered, but reordering amongst
tubes is definitely possible.
-
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