From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:01:15 +0200 Message-ID: <466D398B.2020900@trash.net> References: <1181082517.4062.31.camel@localhost> <4666CEB7.6030804@trash.net> <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=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , 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 stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:40825 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751359AbXFKMDl (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:03:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1181172766.4064.83.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 15:35 -0700, David Miller wrote: > >>The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the fact >>that it is bad to not queue to the device when there is space >>available, _even_ for lower priority packets. > > > 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. With a single queue state _any_ full HW queue will starve all other queues, independant of the software queueing discipline.