[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB580DA6E3@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:09:06 +0000
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of
the timecompare method
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@...il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:00 AM
> To: chetan loke
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net; Keller, Jacob
> E; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Ronciak, John; john.stultz@...aro.org;
> tglx@...utronix.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of the
> timecompare method
>
> Can you please explain how using a seqlock could help here?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
My understanding of the seqlock, is that it prevents starvation of the hwtstamp calls in the rx and tx routines if/when a user hammers the gettime ioctl due to bad software design where 100+ apps are wanting direct access to the PHC.
- Jake
--
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