[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120324065147.GB2201@netboy.at.omicron.at>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:51:49 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
Cc: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"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
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:39:08PM -0400, chetan loke wrote:
>
> So, how is it working today? Because we could have tx and rx
> completions on different CPUs. Is it not possible to have the
> following race today - between timecompare_update->timecompare_offset
> -> timecounter_readdelta of say Rx and timecounter_cyc2time from Tx?
I works (in the igb) because of the spinlock. You know, that thing
that you are so against using.
> So yes, rate limiting ioctls seems like a good idea.
No, that is a terrible idea.
> How about rate limiting at the PHC class driver level? And then it
> will work across the board for all the adapters at the device level.
No, don't go there. Enough bikeshedding already. If you have a serious
performance issue, please post a test case, and we will look for a
solution.
Thanks,
Richard
--
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