On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:47:11 -0800 "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2005 23:18:14 -0500 > jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 12:12, Grant Grundler wrote: > > > > > Some workloads that Jamal cares about (routing) only need 2 cpus. > > > > What bothers me is more the complexity this has introduced more than > > the workload. OTOH, 1-2% improvement posted by Roland is good > > justification. > > I think I'm going to put in something like Eric's patch and fix > up the other LLTX drivers as per his sungem patch. > > There is a part of me that does want to yank LLTX for non-loopback > out of the tree. Wondering, why not just have the drivers have a way to lock dev->queue_lock in the interrupt handler, and change the xmit to do spin_lock_irqsave? Any driver that assumes it is being called with irq's enabled in transmit is probably already busted anyway. -- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
