Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:48:43 -0700 From: Vijay Singh <vijju.singh@gmail.com> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ixgbe rx & tx locks Message-ID: <CALCNsJQkLdEMkCUfp00woGbf-uUCOQVt5mJuZfrRTw9PRGYM9w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFOYbcmuxBmOfC6P0UBG5RR7xJy_i5mTr2NGMRcTJEJrQmjQ_Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALCNsJSSQSWV7vNVR-Sn8CPDKbUBBLpSH0b-HYMJo3SXvkOY=w@mail.gmail.com> <201208161736.47250.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAFOYbc=bXv_V4egO94ftkTFoLQ2uM50Sw3X5kgYoyKQcd0s31A@mail.gmail.com> <201208170941.54482.jhb@freebsd.org> <CALCNsJQ740ceDzpd5n7QAALn-uJ-GdWxPTkQJuMJUMTUGJjOUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFOYbcmuxBmOfC6P0UBG5RR7xJy_i5mTr2NGMRcTJEJrQmjQ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah yes, at one time I was keeping the RX side lock when calling the stack, > but then as I recall that had problems, so the code now releases and > reaquires > as you can see. It results in some contention but I'm not sure that's > avoidable. Jack, I am wondering if this could be avoided if we can avoid to enqueue the task OR re-enable interrupts if the other one is already scheduled. Is this possible?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALCNsJQkLdEMkCUfp00woGbf-uUCOQVt5mJuZfrRTw9PRGYM9w>