On Sun, 2008-20-07 at 16:59 -0700, David Miller wrote: > Every time this topic comes up, you insist on them having to match. > And I have no idea why. I dont insist on them matching, just on correctness. i.e if you say you have RR, then the scheduling needs to meet those requirements not an estimate - thats all. > The problem is that the bottleneck is the qdisc itself since all those > cpus synchonize on it's lock. We can't have a shared qdisc for the > device and get full parallelization. > > That's why we're having one qdisc per TX queue, so that they all don't > bunch up on the qdisc lock. That last sentence i have no issues with - it is what i thought wasnt happening;-> i misunderstood it to be a single fifo shared by all hardware tx queues from the begining (otherwise i wouldnt be posting). We are in sync i think, a single pfifo per TX queue is the way to go. I was suggesting it goes in the driver, but this is cleaner: In the future, one could could actually replace the pfifo with another qdisc since the single virtual wire becomes equivalent to a single virtual netdevice > Otherwise, there is zero point in all of these TX multiqueue features > in the hardware if we can't parallelize things fully. parallelization is achieveable in the ideal case. cheers, jamal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
