Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring | From | Jason Wang <> | Date | Mon, 16 May 2016 15:51:48 +0800 |
| |
On 2016年05月16日 11:56, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-16 at 09:17 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to queue tx packets in sk_receive_queue, this is less >> efficient since it requires spinlocks to synchronize between producer >> and consumer. > ... > >> struct tun_struct *detached; >> + /* reader lock */ >> + spinlock_t rlock; >> + unsigned long tail; >> + struct tun_desc tx_descs[TUN_RING_SIZE]; >> + /* writer lock */ >> + spinlock_t wlock; >> + unsigned long head; >> }; >> > Ok, we had these kind of ideas floating around for many other cases, > like qdisc, UDP or af_packet sockets... > > I believe we should have a common set of helpers, not hidden in > drivers/net/tun.c but in net/core/skb_ring.c or something, with more > flexibility (like the number of slots) >
Yes, this sounds good.
> BTW, why are you using spin_lock_irqsave() in tun_net_xmit() and > tun_peek() ? > > BH should be disabled already (in tun_next_xmit()), and we can not > transmit from hard irq. > > Thanks.
Right, no need. But for tun_peek() we need spin_lock_bh() since it was called by vhost-net.
Thanks
| |