From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sowmini Varadhan Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] sunvnet: Packet processing in non-interrupt context. Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:31:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20141006193111.GE24721@oracle.com> References: <20141003144024.GA12448@oracle.com> <20141003.120802.1213573830649867131.davem@davemloft.net> <20141006160418.GA3604@oracle.com> <20141006.152526.965519223260573233.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: raghuram.kothakota@oracle.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:30340 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752082AbaJFTbT (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:31:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141006.152526.965519223260573233.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On (10/06/14 15:25), David Miller wrote: > > > But we still need to hold the vio lock around the ldc_write > > (and also around dring write) in vnet_start_xmit, right? > > You might be able to avoid it, you're fully serialized by the TX queue > lock. yes, I was just noticing that. The only place where I believe I need to hold the vio spin-lock is to sync with the dr->cons checks (the "should I send a start_cons LDC message?" check in vnet_start_xmit() vs the vnet_ack() updates). But isn't it better in general to declare NETIF_F_LLTX and have finer lock granularity in the driver? --Sowmini