[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1389313313.31367.74.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:21:53 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next 4/4] net_sched: make ingress qdisc lockless
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 10:19 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> ---
> net/core/dev.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index ce01847..e357d05 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -3376,10 +3376,8 @@ static int ing_filter(struct sk_buff *skb, struct netdev_queue *rxq)
>
> q = rxq->qdisc;
> if (q != &noop_qdisc) {
> - spin_lock(qdisc_lock(q));
> if (likely(!test_bit(__QDISC_STATE_DEACTIVATED, &q->state)))
> result = qdisc_enqueue_root(skb, q);
> - spin_unlock(qdisc_lock(q));
> }
>
> return result;
Really, you'll have to explain in the changelog why you think this is
safe, because I really do not see how this can be valid.
I think I already said it was not safe at all...
You could try a multiqueue NIC for some interesting effects.
--
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