netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue().
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:45:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081015064522.GA4215@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48F502FA.4040004@intel.com>

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:37:14PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:41:30AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> ...
>>> I think if anything it seems like you guys actually found the cpu
>>> performance issue a while back in the fact that the dev_requeue_skb was
>>> calling __netif_schedule when requeuing on a stopped queue.  That is the
>>> one piece I would say needs to be changed so that you only call
>>> __netif_schedule if the skb is not going to a stopped queue.
>>
>> BTW, since one of the other "dreams" of killing requeuing failed, I
>> think this proposal is worth checking, but David was concerned about
>> some issues with buggy drivers after __netif_schedule() removing.
>>
>> Jarek P.
>
> I would say not to remove it.  Just add a check to verify that the queue  
> the packet is bound for is not stopped prior to calling it.  If the  
> queue is stopped it should be rescheduled by the wake_queue call when  
> the device has cleared the queue.

Sure, I meant "after __netif_schedule() call removing". Anyway, there
were a discussion on something like this:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122197536025956&w=2

> Unfortunately I am currently working on other projects so I don't really  
>  have the time to create and test a patch for this.  Hopefully my input  
> has proven useful.

Without this __netif_schedule() call we should expect at least higher
cpu use here while packets are xmitted to a stopped queue compared to
older kernels or the current one (especially with multi qdisc/class/
filter configs), so first we should know this requeuing from the top is
really necessary, and I didn't see anything convincing about this yet.

Thanks,
Jarek P.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-15  6:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-14  9:52 [PATCH 00/14]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue() Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-14 11:39 ` Patrick McHardy
2008-10-14 12:26   ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-14 12:32     ` Patrick McHardy
2008-10-14 17:56       ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-14 20:18         ` David Miller
2008-10-14 20:44         ` Patrick McHardy
2008-10-15  8:27           ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-15  9:45             ` Patrick McHardy
2008-10-14 16:41 ` Alexander Duyck
2008-10-14 18:37   ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-14 18:41     ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-14 19:15   ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-14 20:37     ` Alexander Duyck
2008-10-15  6:45       ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2008-10-15  7:19         ` Jarek Poplawski

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=20081015064522.GA4215@ff.dom.local \
    --to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexander.h.duyck@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).