[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OFCE4875A4.35085550-ON65257602.0046AC85-65257602.004A0678@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:58:33 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jarkao2@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Don't run __qdisc_run() on a stopped TX queue
Hi Herbert,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote on 07/29/2009 06:14:28 AM:
>
> Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Don't run __qdisc_run() on a stopped TX queue
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:59:19PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > The premise is that there'd be only one. The qdisc lock.
> >
> > If the traffic is distributed, flow wise, the driver XMIT
> > lock would spread due to multiqueue.
>
> Suppose that we have a single large flow going through that has
> filled up the hardware queue and is now backlogged in the qdisc
> with qdisc_run on CPU A. Now some other flow comes along and
> sends a packet on CPU B.
>
> So now CPU A and B will both be processing packets for the first
> flow causing loads of lock contention.
>
> But worse yet, we have introduced packet reordering. So are you
> convinced now :)
I am probably misunderstanding you, but ... For different flows, is
this an issue? The same TCP connection will always use a single TXQ,
even if it runs on different CPUs since dev_pick_tx will select the
same txq, so how will reordering happen?
thanks,
- KK
(I am off tomorrow, but will be around for the next 3 hours)
--
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