Re: ifq serialisation, was Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-09 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 21:58:49 +1000 > From: David Gwynne > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:00:16PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: > > the current code for serialising if_start calls for mpsafe nics does what > > it says. > > as per mpi@s suggestion, this makes the ifq code

ifq serialisation, was Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-08 Thread David Gwynne
On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:00:16PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: > the current code for serialising if_start calls for mpsafe nics does what it > says. as per mpi@s suggestion, this makes the ifq code responsible for the task serialisation. all the machinery is there, but it provides a minimal

Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-07 Thread David Gwynne
> On 7 Dec 2015, at 11:34 PM, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 07/12/15(Mon) 19:37, David Gwynne wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 03:51:26PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: >>> On 06/12/15(Sun) 14:00, David Gwynne wrote: [...] the idea is you have a taskctx, which

Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-07 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 07/12/15(Mon) 19:37, David Gwynne wrote: > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 03:51:26PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 06/12/15(Sun) 14:00, David Gwynne wrote: > > > [...] > > > the idea is you have a taskctx, which represents a serialising > > > context for tasks. tasks are submitted to the

Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-07 Thread David Gwynne
On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 03:51:26PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 06/12/15(Sun) 14:00, David Gwynne wrote: > > the current code for serialising if_start calls for mpsafe nics does > > what it says. > > > > however, kettenis realised it doesnt help us much when we're trying > > to coordinate

Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-07 Thread Hrvoje Popovski
On 6.12.2015. 15:56, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: > On 6.12.2015. 5:00, David Gwynne wrote: >> the current code for serialising if_start calls for mpsafe nics does what it >> says. >> >> however, kettenis realised it doesnt help us much when we're trying >> to coordinate between the start and txeof

Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-06 Thread Hrvoje Popovski
On 6.12.2015. 5:00, David Gwynne wrote: > the current code for serialising if_start calls for mpsafe nics does what it > says. > > however, kettenis realised it doesnt help us much when we're trying > to coordinate between the start and txeof side of a driver when > setting or clearing oactive.

Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-06 Thread Hrvoje Popovski
On 6.12.2015. 15:56, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: > On 6.12.2015. 5:00, David Gwynne wrote: >> the current code for serialising if_start calls for mpsafe nics does what it >> says. >> >> however, kettenis realised it doesnt help us much when we're trying >> to coordinate between the start and txeof

Re: taskctx and revisiting if_start serialisation

2015-12-06 Thread Norman Golisz
Hi, I can't comment on the code itself, but there's > The > taskq > API provides a mechanism to defer work to a process context. > .Pp > +The > +taskctx > +API provides a mechanism to serialise work in a single context. > +A taskctx guarantees that all work submitted to it will not run >