[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080827.041511.189138671.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jarkao2@...il.com
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pkt_sched: Fix gen_estimator locks
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:09:39 +0000
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:47:23AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:44:58 +0000
> >
> > > Yes, it should be simpler. (We can probably consider a pointer to
> > > itself instead of NULL for root qdiscs, to skip testing for NULL e.g.
> > > while getting a lock.) On the other hand, we lose with this the
> > > possibility to easily determine which dev_queue is "the owner" of the
> > > qdisc, or if some dev_queue contains a clone only.
> >
> > For root qdiscs we can add a TCQ_F_SHARED flag for this purpose.
>
> Yes, but we can't do something like this:
Good point.
We could go back to using a device scope list. The only piece to
solve at that point is how to differentiate the different entries in
the non-shared multiq case.
What it comes down to is semantics, and how we might want to handle
multiq non-shared cases in future uses.
Maybe some day we'll allow real complicated configurations, such as
mixes of shared and non-shared qdiscs on the TX queues.
So we'd need to think about how that would look, implementation wise.
--
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