Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:16:54 -0500 From: Karim Fodil-Lemelin <kfodil-lemelin@xiplink.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Karim Fodil-Lemelin <fodillemlinkarim@gmail.com>, Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>, nodens2099@gmail.com, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: igb and ALTQ in 9.1-rc3 Message-ID: <50C794B6.8030303@xiplink.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomOSrh1bhB6G3dz4LJHXKzW4KoTZSkr6%2BC9euf=mSu3Aw@mail.gmail.com> References: <50C74990.2090803@gmail.com> <1355243209.48529.YahooMailClassic@web121606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAJ-VmomOSrh1bhB6G3dz4LJHXKzW4KoTZSkr6%2BC9euf=mSu3Aw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/12/2012 1:03 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > The if_transmit versus multiqueue thing is orthogonal. Indeed, although ALTQ isn't using if_transmit and doing a simple drop in (replacing if_start with if_transmit) breaks ALTQ with multiqueue capable drivers. > > I'm planning to make net80211 and ath(4) use if_transmit instead of > if_start. It won't be a multi-queue driver; I'm actually going down > the path of if_transmit specifically so I can control the TX queue > serialisation and actively _serialise_ frame TX, instead of > implementing a multi-queue driver. > > ALTQ as a concept needs to be glued in a different way. It can't just > override the queue macros like it does. That's just plain ew. I agree. I think ALTQ should maintain its own queues and locks and not rely on drivers for queue management. > > net80211 has some rather quirky behaviour, unfortunately. I won't go > into it here. Suffice to say, I can't just use the IFQ macros, the > if_queue as it stands, nor buf_ring. > > > > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50C794B6.8030303>