Re: [sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

[Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45 +0100
"Eric Lemoine" <eric.lemoine@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33 +0100
> > "Eric Lemoine" <eric.lemoine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > You could also just use net_tx_lock() now.
> > >
> > > You mean netif_tx_lock()?
> > >
> > > Thanks for letting me know about that function. Yes, I may need it.
> > > tg3 and bnx2 use it to wake up the transmit queue:
> > >
> > >          if (unlikely(netif_queue_stopped(tp->dev) &&
> > >                       (tg3_tx_avail(tp) > TG3_TX_WAKEUP_THRESH))) {
> > >                  netif_tx_lock(tp->dev);
> > >                  if (netif_queue_stopped(tp->dev) &&
> > >                      (tg3_tx_avail(tp) > TG3_TX_WAKEUP_THRESH))
> > >                          netif_wake_queue(tp->dev);
> > >                  netif_tx_unlock(tp->dev);
> > >          }
> > >
> > > 2.6.17 didn't use it. Was it a bug?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > No, it was introduced in 2.6.18. The functions are just a wrapper
> > around the network device transmit lock that is normally held.
> >
> > If the device does not need to acquire the lock during IRQ, it
> > is a good alternative and avoids a second lock.
> >
> > For transmit locking there are three common alternatives:
> >
> > Method A: dev->queue_xmit_lock and per-device tx_lock
> >         send: dev->xmit_lock held by caller
> >             dev->hard_start_xmit acquires netdev_priv(dev)->tx_lock
> >
> >         irq:  netdev_priv(dev)->tx_lock acquired
> >
> > Method B: dev->queue_xmit_lock only
> >         send: dev->xmit_lock held by caller
> >         irq:  schedules softirq (NAPI)
> >         napi_poll: calls netif_tx_lock() which acquires dev->xmit_lock
> >
> > Method C: LLTX
> >         set dev->features LLTX
> >         send: no locks held by caller
> >                 dev->hard_start_xmit acquires netdev_priv(dev)->tx_lock
> >         irq: netdev_priv(dev)->tx_lock acquired
> >
> > Method A is the only one that works with 2.4 and early (2.6.8?) kernels.
> >
> 
> Current sungem does Method C, and uses two locks: lock and tx_lock.
> What I was planning to do is Method B (which current tg3 uses). It
> seems to me that Method B is better than Method C. What do you think?

B is better than C because the transmit logic doesn't have to
spin in the case of lock contention, but it is not a big difference.
You can only use B if you do Tx completion outside of hard IRQ.