Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:58:28 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>, net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ixgbe & if_igb RX ring locking Message-ID: <20121015165828.GX89655@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <CAFOYbcmkt%2B3-f7BzfaStUHBFEO0TzJXhYES=42ovkencPoKHJA@mail.gmail.com> References: <5079A9A1.4070403@FreeBSD.org> <20121015162926.GV89655@FreeBSD.org> <CAFOYbcmkt%2B3-f7BzfaStUHBFEO0TzJXhYES=42ovkencPoKHJA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:39:24AM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: J> > To me this unlock/lock looks like a legacy from times, when the driver J> > had a single mutex for both TX and RX parts. J> > J> > And removing this re-locking in foo_rxeof() was one of the aims for J> > separate J> > TX/RX locking. J> > J> > Really, lurking through history shows that once driver had split its J> > locking J> > to separate RX and TX part, these unlock/lock was removed. However, later J> > this unlock/lock was added back: J> > J> > J> > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.c?revision=209068&view=markup J> > J> > , without any comments for the reason it is added back. J> > J> > I did not want to add it back, there were problems that constrained me to J> do so, although its J> been some time, I'd be happy to do some testing again without and see. Can you please dig through mail archives to identify these problems? I can't imagine any. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121015165828.GX89655>