From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: ACPI/HT or Packet Scheduler BUG? Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:21:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20050416182114.GL4114@postel.suug.ch> References: <1113601029.4294.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1113601446.17859.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1113602052.4294.89.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050415225422.GF4114@postel.suug.ch> <20050416014906.GA3291@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050416110639.GI4114@postel.suug.ch> <20050416112329.GA31847@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050416113446.GJ4114@postel.suug.ch> <1113667447.7419.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Herbert Xu , Steven Rostedt , netdev , Tarhon-Onu Victor , kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, devik@cdi.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Patrick McHardy , "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: jamal Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1113667447.7419.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * jamal <1113667447.7419.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> 2005-04-16 12:04 > The rule of "optimize for the common" fails miserably in this case > because this is not a common case/usage of qdiscs. I tend to agree. OTOH, I use exactly such setups... ;-> > I have a feeling though that the patch went in due to > dude-optimizing-loopback as pointed by Herbert. I checked, it was in fact during the lockless loopback optimizations. > Maybe worth reverting to the earlier scheme if it is going to continue > to be problematic. Let me first check and see how the locking can be done at best, it doesn't match the principles in sch_generic.c anyway at the moment so once we know how to do the locking efficient and how to remove the error proneess we can see if the optimization fits in without problems and make a call.