From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070606.165356.102125635.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1181168020.4064.46.camel@localhost> <20070606.153530.48530367.davem@davemloft.net> <1181172766.4064.83.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii 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: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:60868 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763926AbXFFXxk (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 19:53:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1181172766.4064.83.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: jamal Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:32:46 -0400 > So use a different scheduler. Dont use strict prio. Strict prio will > guarantee starvation of low prio packets as long as there are high prio > packets. Thats the intent. Ok, point taken. 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? :)