Andrew, On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:16:24PM +0400, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: A> > The interaction between sfxge_tx_qdpl_put() and sfxge_tx_packet_add() A> > is quite complex and I couldn't resist from suggesting you to A> > simplify the code. A> > A> > Can you please look into attached patch? A> > A> > - Inline sfxge_tx_qdpl_put() into sfxge_tx_packet_add(). A> > - Simplify the 'locked' logic. A> > - Add your PATCH 1/6, the mbuf leak fix. A> > - Add your PATCH 2/6, the SFXGE_TX_DPL_GET_PKT_LIMIT_DEFAULT check. A> I don't like "locked" flag passed to qdpl_put() function as well. A> However, I prefer to keep patches granular and avoid mixing of different A> changes in single patch. If the initial patch is OK, please, submit it A> to repository. Then, I'll rebase your patch, discuss it locally and come A> back to you.
As you wish. Committed, thanks. A> BTW, I see that many drivers use drbr for software Tx queue. What do you A> think, would it be beneficial to use it instead of the list implemented A> here? No idea. drbr(9) is definitely better than ifqueue(9), that's all I can confident state. No idea how drbr(4) compares to the hand made queue of sxfge(4). You've got the hardware, you measure :) Btw, there are some opinions that with modern cards any software queing is a bad idea. Driver should simply hold as much as hardware tx ring can hold. There is no yet stable decision about this, just thoughts floating around. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
