David Miller wrote: > So that ->poll_controller() can process TX acks by just having > the TX lock and interrupts disabled. > > Can you think of another way to process TX acks from absolutely > any execution context whatsoever? That's what we need and > preferably in some generic way, and the above is what I came > up with.
What are we trying to protect against by taking the TX lock before calling ->poll_controller()? > > To be honest I don't think the TX lock contention will matter, and > even if there were a small cost, the simplicity of the netpoll > implementation is worth it given how problematic and hard to debug > netpoll has been in the past. > > There is a measurable difference in oprofile. When passing small packets, there's a non-trivial difference in throughput. - 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
