On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply :)
>
> On 26 August 2013 22:16, Jesse Gross wrote:
>
>> Please look at the implementation of the loop counter.
>
> Sorry but I couldn't find anything interesting/tricky in implementation
> of loop cou
Hi Jesse,
Thanks for your quick reply :)
On 26 August 2013 22:16, Jesse Gross wrote:
> Please look at the implementation of the loop counter.
Sorry but I couldn't find anything interesting/tricky in implementation
of loop counter.. :(
struct loop_counter {
u8 count; /* Count. */
bool
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24 August 2013 06:30, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> Putting a big lock around the majority of the packet processing
>> doesn't seem like a particularly good idea for performance and you
>> would need to make sure that you get all the entry points.
On 24 August 2013 06:30, Jesse Gross wrote:
> Putting a big lock around the majority of the packet processing
> doesn't seem like a particularly good idea for performance and you
> would need to make sure that you get all the entry points. You would
> probably be better off serializing the parts t
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 2- local_bh_disable()
>
> This is how it is implemented:
>
> +void local_bh_disable(void)
> +{
> + migrate_disable();
> + current->softirq_nestcnt++;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(local_bh_disable);
>
> And here is the problem: Code curren
On 7 August 2013 22:48, Jesse Gross wrote:
> It's not a particularly good starting point because all it was make it
> compile on these kernels. It didn't actually make anything
> preemptable.
I am back after some study of RT Kernel.. :)
So, I had a look at OVS out-of-kernel module to get RT suppo
