On 22/01/12 02:45, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 17 January 2012 11:42, Helmut Schaa <helmut.sc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> @@ -313,6 +312,7 @@ ramips_eth_tx_housekeeping(unsigned long ptr)
>> struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device*)ptr;
>> struct raeth_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
>>
>> + spin_lock(&priv->page_lock);
>> while ((priv->tx[priv->skb_free_idx].txd2 & TX_DMA_DONE) &&
>> (priv->tx_skb[priv->skb_free_idx])) {
>> dev_kfree_skb_irq(priv->tx_skb[priv->skb_free_idx]);
>> @@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ ramips_eth_tx_housekeeping(unsigned long ptr)
>> if (priv->skb_free_idx >= NUM_TX_DESC)
>> priv->skb_free_idx = 0;
>> }
>> + spin_unlock(&priv->page_lock);
>>
>> ramips_fe_int_enable(RAMIPS_TX_DLY_INT);
>> }
>
> Seems that spinlock here introduces performance hit in wifi<->eth path.
> Are you sure it's needed? Seems that it works fine also without this spinlock.
helmut,
can you verify this ?
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
