[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090402141342.GA377@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:13:42 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, jarkao2@...il.com, vernux@...ibm.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:32:39 +0100
>
>> I dont understand, doesnt it defeat the ticket spinlock thing and fairness ?
>>
>> Thread doing __qdisc_run() already owns the __QDISC_STATE_RUNNING bit.
>
> Right.
>
> Remember, the way this is designed is that if there is a busy
> cpu taking packets out of the queue and putting them into the
> device then other cpus will simply add to the queue and immediately
> return. This effectively keeps the queue running there processing
> all the new work that other cpus are adding to the qdisc.
>
> Those other cpus make these decisions by looking at that
> __QDISC_STATE_RUNNING bit, which the queue runner grabs before
> it does any work.
Come on guys, if this lock is a problem. go out and buy a proper
NIC that supports multiequeue TX!
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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