From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: Netchannles: first stage has been completed. Further ideas. Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:14:39 -0700 Message-ID: <44C0FD6F.5010601@candelatech.com> References: <20060719131915.GA21942@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20060720073223.GA15567@tservice.net.ru> <20060720164100.GA9213@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20060720210849.GA28715@tservice.net.ru> <44BFF3F5.3040104@candelatech.com> <20060721071900.GB5151@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:13478 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750985AbWGUQO6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:14:58 -0400 To: Evgeniy Polyakov In-Reply-To: <20060721071900.GB5151@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 02:21:57PM -0700, Ben Greear (greearb@candelatech.com) wrote: > >>Out of curiosity, is it possible to have the single producer logic >>if you have two+ ethernet interfaces handling frames for a single >>TCP connection? (I am assuming some sort of multi-path routing >>logic...) > > > I do not think it is possible with additional logic like what is > implemented in softirqs, i.e. per cpu queues of data, which in turn will > be converted into skbs one-by-one. Couldn't you have two NICs being handled by two separate CPUs, with both CPUs trying to write to the same socket queue? The receive path works with RCU locking from what I understand, so a protocol's receive function must be re-entrant. -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com