| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: simple change to qdisc_restart() |
| From: | Eric Lemoine <Eric.Lemoine@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 20 May 2003 10:57:25 +0200 |
| Cc: | Eric.Lemoine@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030520.012824.85398613.davem@redhat.com> |
| References: | <20030520082217.GC978@udine> <20030520.012824.85398613.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
> From: Eric Lemoine <Eric.Lemoine@xxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:22:17 +0200 > > Any comments regarding the following patch? > > I understand why it is valid, etc., but why do we even want to do > this? It is not like this dead-loop detection stuff is a hot-path or > anything like that. I've implemented a prototype that uses per-CPU kernel threads for processing packets coming in from a single interface. The idea is to apply multiple CPUs to a single network interface to be able to have multiple CPUs simultaneously pumping data into the network. So in my case, I have lots of cpu_collisions and running the tx softirq to do nothing may lower the performances. Anyway, even though my patch may help me, it may indeed be irrelevant to the stock kernel. Thx. -- Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: simple change to qdisc_restart(), David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: simple change to qdisc_restart(), Robert Olsson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: simple change to qdisc_restart(), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: simple change to qdisc_restart(), Robert Olsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |