David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:32:39 +0100 > >> I dont understand, doesnt it defeat the ticket spinlock thing and fairness ? >> >> Thread doing __qdisc_run() already owns the __QDISC_STATE_RUNNING bit. > > Right. > > Remember, the way this is designed is that if there is a busy > cpu taking packets out of the queue and putting them into the > device then other cpus will simply add to the queue and immediately > return. This effectively keeps the queue running there processing > all the new work that other cpus are adding to the qdisc. > > Those other cpus make these decisions by looking at that > __QDISC_STATE_RUNNING bit, which the queue runner grabs before > it does any work. Come on guys, if this lock is a problem. go out and buy a proper NIC that supports multiequeue TX! Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
