On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 07:34:57AM -0400, jamal wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-06 at 20:39 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > It would guard against the poll routine which would acquire this lock > > when cleaning the TX ring. > > Ok, then i suppose we can conclude it is a bug on e1000 (holds tx_lock > on tx side and adapter queue lock on rx). Adding that lock will > certainly bring down the performance numbers on a send/recv profile. > The bizare thing is things run just fine even under the heavy tx/rx > traffic i was testing under. I guess i didnt hit hard enough.
Hmm I wasn't describing how it works now. I'm talking about how it would work if we removed LLTX and replaced the private tx_lock with netif_tx_lock. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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
