From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rps: core implementation Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:21:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091117.232147.59648714.davem@davemloft.net> References: <65634d660911102253o2b4f7a19kfed5849e5c88bfe1@mail.gmail.com> <20091116.031914.65020185.davem@davemloft.net> <65634d660911160843j3df398f2w876044083181cfcd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: therbert@google.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:51287 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751330AbZKRHVa (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:21:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <65634d660911160843j3df398f2w876044083181cfcd@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:43:05 -0800 > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:19 AM, David Miller wrote: >> {,__}send_remote_softirq() doesn't work? :-) >> > NET_RPS_SOFTIRQ is intended to provide coalescing of IPIs. > > send_remote_softirq could be used, but we would also need to get the > napi structure on the remote cpu poll list so that would probably need > to be protected by locks (something like __napi_schedule_oncpu could > be defined). Would this be better to do? We talked about this several times in the past too. Let me think some more about this, I want to consider all of the issues a bit before making any suggestions. Thanks.