[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071009135340.33e5922c@freepuppy.rosehill>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:53:40 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, jeff@...zik.org, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, gaagaan@...il.com,
Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rdreier@...co.com, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
hadi@...erus.ca, mcarlson@...adcom.com, jagana@...ibm.com,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, mchan@...adcom.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com, sri@...ibm.com, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH 2/3][NET_BATCH] net core use batching
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
> Date: 09 Oct 2007 18:51:51 +0200
>
> > Hopefully that new qdisc will just use the TX rings of the hardware
> > directly. They are typically large enough these days. That might avoid
> > some locking in this critical path.
>
> Indeed, I also realized last night that for the default qdiscs
> we do a lot of stupid useless work. If the queue is a FIFO
> and the device can take packets, we should send it directly
> and not stick it into the qdisc at all.
>
> > If the data is just passed on to the hardware queue, why is any
> > locking needed at all? (except for the driver locking of course)
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Our packet scheduler subsystem is great, but by default it should just
> get out of the way.
I was thinking why not have a default transmit queue len of 0 like
the virtual devices.
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
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