| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Queue and SMP locking discussion (was Re: 3c59x.c) |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 3 Apr 2000 07:21:59 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200004021634.UAA06582@ms2.inr.ac.ru> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello! > > > Just queuing the packet in netif_rx() *should* take minimal extra work, and > > have minimal cache impact. Dropping the packet because the queue layer is > > full should take even less work. > > It is true, it does not take any time. But we need not this. Looking at my notes: 2.3 just swallows as much as 2.2. Maybe this is chip dependent as Robert was implying? I have a 21143 chip. I should easily be able to check the exact revision numbers from the PCI messages if someone is interested. The h/ware is a 4-port ccard made by Znyx. cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Queue and SMP locking discussion (was Re: 3c59x.c), jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: More questions..., Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Queue and SMP locking discussion (was Re: 3c59x.c), kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Queue and SMP locking discussion (was Re: 3c59x.c), Michael Richardson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |