From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [RFC][NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:27:40 +0400 Message-ID: <20070917102738.GA3087@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <1189959274.4241.30.camel@localhost> <20070916.123158.92582301.davem@davemloft.net> <1189975284.4230.14.camel@localhost> <1189975939.4230.19.camel@localhost> <1189977000.4230.25.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, dada1@cosmosbay.com To: jamal Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:42956 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751069AbXIQK3i (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:29:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1189977000.4230.25.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:10:00PM -0400, jamal (hadi@cyberus.ca) wrote: > On Sun, 2007-16-09 at 16:52 -0400, jamal wrote: > > > What i should say is > > if i grabbed the lock explicitly without disabling irqs it wont be much > > different than what is done today and should always work. > > No? > > And to be more explicit, heres a patch using the macros from previous > patch. So far tested on 3 NICs. How many cpu collisions you are seeing? Did I understand you right, that you replaced trylock with lock and thus removed collision handling and got better results? -- Evgeniy Polyakov