Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757573AbZCWIvZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:51:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756120AbZCWIvK (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:51:10 -0400 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.24]:59249 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754368AbZCWIvI (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:51:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=dBo8bhFyx2XiAG4YZny4g+qtgjxe9xUL88PdbxNLp40rWuIfxvc6Yca3CZ0KsMeXTu krr3K2xI3C6AUtzfNPDjjtyM7thykOcENL79plWXmFA6nOVCIaue+iV5D70u2Y3DNLen +kWXCOXjSSWO4fGZCb/CsOqv5RF6+65cMcUu8= Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:50:58 +0000 From: Jarek Poplawski To: David Miller Cc: dada1@cosmosbay.com, vernux@us.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock Message-ID: <20090323085058.GC4976@ff.dom.local> References: <20090320232943.GA3024@ami.dom.local> <49C74927.7020008@cosmosbay.com> <20090323.013749.122944803.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090323.013749.122944803.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 957 Lines: 25 On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 01:37:49AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:32:39 +0100 > > > I dont understand, doesnt it defeat the ticket spinlock thing and fairness ? > > > > Thread doing __qdisc_run() already owns the __QDISC_STATE_RUNNING bit. > > Right. > > Remember, the way this is designed is that if there is a busy > cpu taking packets out of the queue and putting them into the > device then other cpus will simply add to the queue and immediately > return. But this "busy cpu" can't take packets out of the queue when it's waiting on the contended spinlock. Anyway, it's only for testing, and I didn't say it has to be right. Jarek P. -- 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/