On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:31 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Please don't use double underscore, for this function name. There is no
> reason to not make it a normal API call.
>
> The sky2 fix I am working on will use napi_synchronize as well.
Allright. A compiler barrier in the !SMP case makes
Please don't use double underscore, for this function name. There is no
reason to not make it a normal API call.
The sky2 fix I am working on will use napi_synchronize as well.
--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h 2007-10-16 16:48:20.0 -0700
+++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h 2007-10-17 08:29:55.
\
> > Note: unfortunately, Jeff already picked up the EMAC patch without
> > waiting for this to be sorted out (oops...). So if you agree with
> > this patch, it would be nice to have it go in quickly or maybe via
> > Jeff's tree to avoid breakage ? Not terribly important tho.
>
>
> Sorry, I thou
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> net: Add __napi_synchronize() to sync with napi poll
>
> The EMAC driver which needs to handle multiple devices with one
> NAPI instance implements its own per-channel disable bit. However,
> when setting such a bit, it needs to synchronize with the poller
> (that i
net: Add __napi_synchronize() to sync with napi poll
The EMAC driver which needs to handle multiple devices with one
NAPI instance implements its own per-channel disable bit. However,
when setting such a bit, it needs to synchronize with the poller
(that is make sure that any pending poller instan
napi: use non-interruptible sleep in napi_disable
The current napi_disable() uses msleep_interruptible() but doesn't
(and can't) exit in case there's a signal, thus ending up doing a
hot spin without a cpu_relax. Use uninterruptible sleep instead.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PRO
> So this is really just like synchronize_irq()? Using msleep is bogus
> because you want to spin, you are only waiting for a softirq on the other
> cpu to finish. If you wait for a whole millisecond and sleep that
> is far longer than the napi routine should take.
>
> You could even optimize it
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:49:52 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> net: Add __napi_sycnhronize() to sync with napi poll
>
> The EMAC driver which needs to handle multiple devices with one
> NAPI instance implements its own per-channel disable bit. However,
> when setting such
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:37:03 +1000
>
> On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 14:06 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Note: I use msleep_interruptible(1); just like napi_disable(). However
> > > I'm not to
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 14:06 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Note: I use msleep_interruptible(1); just like napi_disable(). However
> > I'm not too happy that the "hot" loop that results of a pending signal
> > here will spin without even a cpu_r
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Note: I use msleep_interruptible(1); just like napi_disable(). However
> I'm not too happy that the "hot" loop that results of a pending signal
> here will spin without even a cpu_relax ... what do you guys think would
> be the best way to handl
net: Add __napi_sycnhronize() to sync with napi poll
The EMAC driver which needs to handle multiple devices with one
NAPI instance implements its own per-channel disable bit. However,
when setting such a bit, it needs to synchronize with the poller
(that is make sure that any pending poller instan
net: Add __napi_sycnhronize() to sync with napi poll
The EMAC driver which needs to handle multiple devices with one
NAPI instance implements its own per-channel disable bit. However,
when setting such a bit, it needs to synchronize with the poller
(that is make sure that any pending poller instan
13 matches
Mail list logo
