From: Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:21:58 -0700
> > Another area of consternation are drivers that were using
> > netif_rx_reschedule(), as that interface was removed because it
> > doesn't fit well with the caller managing the dev->quota et al. I
> > left race c
I've been on vacation so I missed most of this thread. I'm just
catching up now...
> Ok I converted everything with Rusty's suggestion to move napi_struct
> out of net_device, this was mostly mechanical but some devices took
> some unanticipated amount of work.
Actually you missed drivers/inf
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:09:55 +1000
> Not pretty 8(
Not at all and cmpxchg() isn't really a generically usable
primitive. Yes all platforms provide atomic_cmpxchg() in
one form or another, but it's really barbaric and inefficient
on some cpu types.
Let'
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 21:29 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:33:14 +1000
>
> > Maybe by adding YA state bit? Hold on, this might get ugly...
> >
> > Say netif_rx_schedule_prep() sets the MORE_TODO bit (atomically instead
> > of sett
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
> EHEA is another case, in fact EHEA doesn't disable interrupts at
> all.
>
> The reason is that EHEA has several NAPI sources behind one single
> hardware interrupt.
>
> That driver's issues were discussed long ag
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:33:14 +1000
> Maybe by adding YA state bit? Hold on, this might get ugly...
>
> Say netif_rx_schedule_prep() sets the MORE_TODO bit (atomically instead
> of setting __LINK_STATE_RX_SCHED) if it's going to fail, and
> netif_rx_comp
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 18:47 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> One thing that's peculiar is that when netif_rx_schedule_prep()
> fails, we don't disable interrupts but we also don't clear the
> condition that is causing the interrupt to occur.
I think we're ok, but this stuff is tricky.
In the driver i
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:15:49 +1000
> If I understand correctly, you're looking at a general model like the
> following:
>
> while (more_packets()) { ... netif_receive_skb() }
>
> enable_rx_and_rxnobuf_ints();
>
> /* Lock protects agai
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 17:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> I'm now going to go over the other resched cases and make sure
> things can be similarly handled in those drivers as well.
> To be honest I'm quite confident this will be the case.
If I understand correctly, you're looking at a general model
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:21:43 +1000
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 22:47 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > Any objections?
>
> On the contrary, this looks good.
It turns out the explicit restart logic isn't necessary. On the first
driver I tried to "convert" this
From: Francois Romieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:12:01 +0200
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> [...]
> > I also didn't play with turning off NAPI in kconfig where drivers
> > allow that, can we just get rid of that crap already? :-/
>
> Would it be accepted for 2.6.23 or m
Francois Romieu wrote:
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
I also didn't play with turning off NAPI in kconfig where drivers
allow that, can we just get rid of that crap already? :-/
Would it be accepted for 2.6.23 or must it be considered post-2.6.23 ?
The merge window is closed, so no
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> I also didn't play with turning off NAPI in kconfig where drivers
> allow that, can we just get rid of that crap already? :-/
Would it be accepted for 2.6.23 or must it be considered post-2.6.23 ?
--
Ueimor
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 22:47 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> I don't think it's wise to implement this over and over again in each
> driver, since we already know at least a handfull of drivers will use
> this.
Yep. Alternative is a napi_struct_with_restart, but I don't think it's
worth the few-byte
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:47:19 +1000
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 21:07 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > Another area of consternation are drivers that were using
> > netif_rx_reschedule(), as that interface was removed because it
> > doesn't fit well with the cal
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 21:07 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Another area of consternation are drivers that were using
> netif_rx_reschedule(), as that interface was removed because it
> doesn't fit well with the caller managing the dev->quota et al. I
> left race conditions in the drivers that were u
16 matches
Mail list logo
