[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071012100500.02255243@freepuppy.rosehill>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:05:00 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <hadi@...erus.ca>,
<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>,
"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
<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 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:08:58 -0700
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com> wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> When the hw TX queue gains space, the driver self-batches packets
> >> from the sw queue to the hw queue.
> >
> > I don't really see the advantage over the qdisc in that scheme.
> > It's certainly not simpler and probably more code and would likely
> > also not require less locks (e.g. a currently lockless driver
> > would need a new lock for its sw queue). Also it is unclear to me
> > it would be really any faster.
>
> related to this comment, does Linux have a lockless (using atomics)
> singly linked list element? That would be very useful in a driver hot
> path.
Use RCU? or write a generic version and get it reviewed. You really
want someone with knowledge of all the possible barrier impacts to
review it.
--
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