Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20090318.185441.138157931.davem@davemloft.net>
To: sven@thebigcorporation.com
Cc: ghaskins@novell.com, vernux@us.ibm.com, andi@firstfloor.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, pmullaney@novell.com
Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <1237427007.8204.55.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com>
References: <1237425191.8204.41.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com>
	<20090318.181713.62394874.davem@davemloft.net>
	<1237427007.8204.55.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 797
Lines: 19

From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@thebigcorporation.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:27 -0700

> Do we have to rule-out per-CPU queues, that aggregate into a master
> queue in a batch-wise manner? 

That would violate the properties and characteristics expected by
the packet scheduler, wrt. to fair based fairness, rate limiting,
etc.

The only legal situation where we can parallelize to single device
is where only the most trivial packet scheduler is attached to
the device and the device is multiqueue, and that is exactly what
we do right now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/