Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock
From: Peter W. Morreale <hidden>
Date: 2009-03-19 13:36:25
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>
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 06:59 -0600, Peter W. Morreale wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 21:54 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:quoted
Vernon Mauery [off-list ref] writes:quoted
quoted
But then again I'm not sure it's worth it if the problem only happens in out of tree RT.Heh. That darn bastard child again, eh? :-) Recall that adaptive spin,developed in RT, is now in mainline.
Err.. correction... *about* to be in mainline. Only point I'm making is that RT does implicitly, if not explicitly, contributes to mainline. Its not a one-way street. Best, -PWM
Best, -PWM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html