On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:01 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:43:13 +0200 > >> i think one solution would be to add some code to have 2 devices share >> the same dql instance. would that be an acceptable solution ? > > You still need to address the issue of synchronization. > > dql purposefully doesn't use locking, always because a higher level > object (in this case the netdev TX queue) it is contained within > provides the synchronization. > > That breaks apart once you share the dql between two netdevs, as you > are proposing here. You'll have to add locking, which is expensive. > > That's why I'm trying to encourage you to think out of the box and > find some way to solve the issue without having to access shared > state shared between multiple devices. >
I think you guys mean mean BQL not DQL :-) If two netdevs share the same DMA ring then is using two netdevs the right approach. Seems like this would have other consequences beyond BQL... Tom > Thanks. >
