From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@broadcom.com>
To: "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: "netdev" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
shemminger@linux-foundation.org, jgarzik@pobox.com,
hadi@cyberus.ca, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC]: napi_struct V4
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:38:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1185485889.7922.83.camel@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070726.001516.48528000.davem@davemloft.net>
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 00:15 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> The netpoll code has to take that anyways in order to call
> into ->hard_start_xmit() to send out the packet it has
> pending, I'm leveraging that as a synchronization mechanism
> in the drivers because the locking options are limited
> given that netpoll can try to do this in any context whatsoever.
>
> > There is a measurable difference in oprofile. When passing small
> > packets, there's a non-trivial difference in throughput.
>
> Then please help come up with an alternate scheme, because these
> NAPI changes fix real limitations and bugs in the current code
> and unless we fix netpoll too we can't move forward.
>
I'm not very familiar with netpoll, but I am guessing that we need to
prevent concurrent calls to the TX cleanup code. For maximum
flexibility, we should let ->poll_controller() handle the locking as the
driver knows what kind of locking is best.
If the driver wants a simple solution, it can do what you did in the
patch: wrap the tx cleanup code with netif_tx_lock() and
netif_tx_unlock().
If a NAPI driver wants to be more clever, it can do something such as
this in tg3's poll_controller:
if (netif_rx_schedule_prep(dev, &tp->napi)) {
tg3_tx(tp);
netif_poll_enable(tp->napi);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-26 20:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-25 8:31 [PATCH RFC]: napi_struct V4 David Miller
2007-07-25 8:56 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-07-26 0:37 ` David Miller
2007-07-26 1:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-07-26 1:56 ` David Miller
2007-07-26 2:00 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-07-26 2:02 ` David Miller
2007-07-28 18:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-07-29 5:33 ` David Miller
2007-07-25 12:01 ` jamal
2007-07-26 4:09 ` David Miller
2007-07-26 6:33 ` Michael Chan
2007-07-26 6:38 ` David Miller
2007-07-26 7:05 ` Michael Chan
2007-07-26 7:15 ` David Miller
2007-07-26 21:38 ` Michael Chan [this message]
2007-07-31 0:25 ` David Miller
2007-07-26 6:39 ` Michael Chan
2007-07-26 6:43 ` David Miller
2007-07-28 15:27 ` Roland Dreier
2007-07-29 5:32 ` David Miller
2007-07-30 15:04 ` Roland Dreier
2007-07-30 22:48 ` David Miller
2007-07-31 2:01 ` Roland Dreier
2007-07-31 2:03 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1185485889.7922.83.camel@dell \
--to=mchan@broadcom.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox