Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2009-03-19 01:55:13
Also in:
linux-rt-users, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2009-04-02 · Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock · Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
- 2009-04-02 · Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock · Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
- 2009-03-23 · Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock · Jarek Poplawski <hidden>
- 2009-03-23 · Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- 2009-03-23 · Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock · Eric Dumazet <hidden>
From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <redacted> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:27 -0700
Do we have to rule-out per-CPU queues, that aggregate into a master queue in a batch-wise manner?
That would violate the properties and characteristics expected by the packet scheduler, wrt. to fair based fairness, rate limiting, etc. The only legal situation where we can parallelize to single device is where only the most trivial packet scheduler is attached to the device and the device is multiqueue, and that is exactly what we do right now.