From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ifb: move tq from ifb_private Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 09:30:02 -0500 Message-ID: <1291559402.2159.687.camel@mojatatu> References: <1291442121-3302-1-git-send-email-xiaosuo@gmail.com> <1291442121-3302-3-git-send-email-xiaosuo@gmail.com> <4CFA3F01.20109@gmail.com> <1291472889.2159.18.camel@mojatatu> <1291474127.2159.35.camel@mojatatu> <20101204154007.GA1981@del.dom.local> <1291478881.2159.70.camel@mojatatu> <20101204165609.GB1981@del.dom.local> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jarek Poplawski , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Changli Gao Return-path: Received: from mail-gw0-f42.google.com ([74.125.83.42]:53782 "EHLO mail-gw0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754777Ab0LEOaR (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:30:17 -0500 Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so5834048gwb.1 for ; Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:30:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 09:13 +0800, Changli Gao wrote: > BTW: My ultimate goal is making ifb a multi-queue NIC, and the number > of queues is equal to the number of the possible CPUs. My view is this is going to be tricky because: - we use tasklets. When we reschedule we can end up on a differrent cpu. -I dont see any point in having a separate softIRQ - and if you do use other mechanisms it would require a lot more testing since there are quiet a few use cases of ifb cheers, jamal