From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 20:02:28 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> Note: Tom Herbert posted almost same patch 3 months back, but for
> different reasons.
>
> The reasons we want to get rid of this spin_trylock() are :
>
> 1) Under high qdisc pressure, the spin_trylock() has alm
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> Note: Tom Herbert posted almost same patch 3 months back, but for
> different reasons.
>
> The reasons we want to get rid of this spin_trylock() are :
>
> 1) Under high qdisc pressure, the spin_trylock() has almost no
>
On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 08:40 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet
> >
> > Note: Tom Herbert posted almost same patch 3 months back, but for
> > different reasons.
> >
> > The reasons we want to get rid of this spin_trylock() are :
>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> Note: Tom Herbert posted almost same patch 3 months back, but for
> different reasons.
>
> The reasons we want to get rid of this spin_trylock() are :
>
> 1) Under high qdisc pressure, the spin_trylock() has almost no
>
From: Eric Dumazet
Note: Tom Herbert posted almost same patch 3 months back, but for
different reasons.
The reasons we want to get rid of this spin_trylock() are :
1) Under high qdisc pressure, the spin_trylock() has almost no
chance to succeed.
2) We loop multiple times in softirq handler, ev