From: Eric Dumazet
Using a reader-writer lock in fast path is silly, when we can
instead use RCU or a seqlock.
For mlx4 hwstamp clock, a seqlock is the way to go, removing
two atomic operations and false sharing.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Tariq Toukan
---
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox
On 09/02/2017 7:10 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet
Using a reader-writer lock in fast path is silly, when we can
instead use RCU or a seqlock.
For mlx4 hwstamp clock, a seqlock is the way to go, removing
two atomic operations and false sharing.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet
Cc: T
On 06/27/2018 05:11 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>
>
> On 09/02/2017 7:10 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet
>>
>> Using a reader-writer lock in fast path is silly, when we can
>> instead use RCU or a seqlock.
>>
>> For mlx4 hwstamp clock, a seqlock is the way to go, removing
>> two ato
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 09:10:04 -0800
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> Using a reader-writer lock in fast path is silly, when we can
> instead use RCU or a seqlock.
>
> For mlx4 hwstamp clock, a seqlock is the way to go, removing
> two atomic operations and false sharing.
>
> Sign
On 14/02/2017 6:28 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 09:10:04 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet
Using a reader-writer lock in fast path is silly, when we can
instead use RCU or a seqlock.
For mlx4 hwstamp clock, a seqlock is the way to go, removing
two atomic operat
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 09:10:04 -0800
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> Using a reader-writer lock in fast path is silly, when we can
> instead use RCU or a seqlock.
>
> For mlx4 hwstamp clock, a seqlock is the way to go, removing
> two atomic operations and false sharing.
>
> Sign
