From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:08:01 -0400 Message-ID: <1181178481.4064.121.camel@localhost> References: <1181168020.4064.46.camel@localhost> <20070606.153530.48530367.davem@davemloft.net> <1181172766.4064.83.camel@localhost> <20070606.165356.102125635.davem@davemloft.net> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kaber@trash.net, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:37430 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756420AbXFGBIF (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:08:05 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so591464pyi for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:08:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070606.165356.102125635.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:53 -0700, David Miller wrote: > There are of course other uses for multiple TX queues, and in > particular my finer-grained locking example. > > I'm still amazed the TX locking issue wasn't clear to you, > too nervous about tonight's game? :) It's too depressing - so i came back here for a break ;-> I cant even stand Don Cherry today. As a side note: You will have to do a lot of surgery to the current code to make tx run on multi CPUs. It needs some experimenting to get right. And i am begining to like Herberts changes ;-> I am not against multi-rings; iam just suggesting an alternative approach which is less disruptive. In regards to the tx lock - my thinking is resolving that via tx batching. You amortize the lock over multiple packets. There may be value in fine grained locking - i need to think about it. A small extension to the batching patches will provide the change i am proposing. cheers, jamal