On 03 Jan 2005 10:04:21 -0500, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this piece: > ----- > + > + /* And release queue */ > + spin_unlock(&dev->queue_lock); > } > --------- > > Isnt there a possibility (higher as you increase number of processors) > that you will spin for a long time in _the driver_ waiting for the queue > lock?
I don't see how LLTX is different from non-LLTX wrt the time spent spinning on queue_lock. What am i missing? > > Maybe we need a flag "the queue lock" is already been grabbed passed > to the driver. LLTX is a good alias but insufficient (if you run your > driver in an old kernels which support LLTX but not the idea of locking > the queue for you). > > Andi or anyone else - has anyone really done perfomance analysis of LLTX > (with anything other than loopback) and shown it has any value? Maybe > time to just shoot the damn thing. I do not like LLTX too much either as I can't see a cleaner way to get rid of that packet reordering race condition. -- Eric _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
