On Fri, 2007-08-06 at 12:38 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:23:16PM -0400, jamal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I believe both are called with no lock. The idea is to avoid the lock
> > entirely when unneeded. That code may end up finding that the packet
[..]
> + netif_tx_lock_bh(odev);
> + if (!netif_queue_stopped(odev)) {
> +
> + idle_start = getCurUs();
> + pkt_dev->tx_entered++;
> + ret = odev->hard_batch_xmit(&odev->blist, odev);
[..]
> The same applies to *_gso case.
>
You missed an important piece which is grabbing of
__LINK_STATE_QDISC_RUNNING
> Without lock that would be wrong - it accesses hardware.
We are achieving the goal of only a single CPU entering that path. Are
you saying that is not good enough?
> I only saw results Krishna posted,
Ok, sorry - i thought you saw the git log or earlier results where
other things are captured.
> and i also do not know, what service demand is :)
>From the explanation seems to be how much cpu was used while sending. Do
you have any suggestions for computing cpu use?
in pktgen i added code to count how many microsecs were used in
transmitting.
> Result looks good, but I still do not understand how it appeared, that
> is why I'm not that excited about idea - I just do not know it in
> details.
To add to KKs explanation on other email:
Essentially the value is in amortizing the cost of barriers and IO per
packet. For example the queue lock is held/released only once per X
packets. DMA kicking which includes both a PCI IO write and mbs is done
only once per X packets. There are still a lot of room for improvement
of such IO;
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
