netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: was Re: LLTX and netif_stop_queue

To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: was Re: LLTX and netif_stop_queue
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:27:05 -0800
Cc: shemminger@xxxxxxxx, roland@xxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, iod00d@xxxxxx, eric.lemoine@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, openib-general@xxxxxxxxxx, kaber@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050121105452.GA12988@xi.wantstofly.org>
References: <527jmu8nbw.fsf@topspin.com> <5cac192f0501030907c755135@mail.gmail.com> <20050103171227.GD7370@esmail.cup.hp.com> <1104812294.1085.53.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050119144711.3fdd3d93.davem@davemloft.net> <20050119151853.259de49a@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050119164640.6c67bdfa.davem@davemloft.net> <52r7kgu5n5.fsf@topspin.com> <20050119230526.393a5184.davem@davemloft.net> <20050120085611.33f9485e@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050121105452.GA12988@xi.wantstofly.org>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:54:52 +0100
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If multiple CPUs can call into the tunneling drivers without taking
> any locks, we'd need some extra locking in there, or just do what
> Alexey describes and keep track of recursion in the skb.

Another idea is that, just like how loopback made it's statistics
per-cpu for LLTX support, this recursion variable could be per-cpu
as well.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>