Hi David, nice to see you getting started with it.
I'm not sure about the queue logic there. 1867 /* Caller must have exclusive producer access to the netchannel. */ 1868 int netchannel_enqueue(struct netchannel *np, struct netchannel_buftrailer *bp) 1869 { 1870 unsigned long tail; 1871 1872 tail = np->netchan_tail; 1873 if (tail == np->netchan_head) 1874 return -ENOMEM; This looks wrong, since empty and full are the same condition in your case. 1891 struct netchannel_buftrailer *__netchannel_dequeue(struct netchannel *np) 1892 { 1893 unsigned long head = np->netchan_head; 1894 struct netchannel_buftrailer *bp = np->netchan_queue[head]; 1895 1896 BUG_ON(np->netchan_tail == head); See? What about sth. like struct netchannel { /* This is only read/written by the writer (producer) */ unsigned long write_ptr; struct netchannel_buftrailer *netchan_queue[NET_CHANNEL_ENTRIES]; /* This is modified by both */ atomic_t filled_entries; /* cache_line_align this? */ /* This is only read/written by the reader (consumer) */ unsigned long read_ptr; } This would prevent this bug from the beginning and let us still use the full queue size. If cacheline bouncing because of the shared filled_entries becomes an issue, you are receiving or sending a lot. Then you can enqueue and dequeue multiple and commit the counts later. To be done with a atomic_read, atomic_add and atomic_sub on filled_entries. Maybe even cheaper with local_t instead of atomic_t later on. But I guess the cacheline bouncing will be a non-issue, since the whole point of netchannels was to keep traffic as local to a cpu as possible, right? Would you like to see a sample patch relative to your tree, to show you what I mean? Regards Ingo Oeser - 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