RE: [PATCH 1/2] NET: Multiple queue network device support
From: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P <hidden>
Date: 2007-03-10 20:37:30
Also in:
lkml
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Graf [mailto:tgraf@suug.ch] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:35 PM To: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P Cc: Kok, Auke-jan H; David Miller; Garzik, Jeff; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Brandeburg, Jesse; Kok, Auke; Ronciak, John Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] NET: Multiple queue network device support * Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P [off-list ref] 2007-03-09 15:27quoted
That's the entire point of this extra locking. enqueue()is going toquoted
put an skb into a band somewhere that maps to some queue,and there isquoted
no way to guarantee the skb I retrieve from dequeue() is headed for the same queue. Therefore, I need to unlock the queueafter I finishquoted
enqueuing, since having that lock makes little sense to dequeue(). dequeue() will then grab *a* lock on a queue; it may be thesame onequoted
we had during enqueue(), but it may not be. And theplacement of thequoted
unlock of that queue is exactly where it happens in non-multiqueue, which is right before the hard_start_xmit().The lock is already unlocked after dequeue, from your prio_dequeue(): if (netif_is_multiqueue(sch->dev)) { queue = q->band2queue[prio]; if (spin_trylock(&sch->dev->egress_subqueue[queue].queue_lock)) { qdisc = q->queues[prio]; skb = qdisc->dequeue(qdisc); if (skb) { sch->q.qlen--; skb->priority = prio; spin_unlock(&sch->dev->egress_subqueue[queue].queue_lock); return skb; } spin_unlock(&sch->dev->egress_subqueue[queue].queue_lock); }
Ok, now I see what's wrong. Taking Dave M.'s recommendation to store the queue mapping in the skb will let me unlock the queue when dequeue() returns. I'll fix this locking issue; thanks for the feedback and persistent drilling into my thick head. -PJ Waskiewicz peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com