Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 11:32:00AM +0400, Oleg Makarenko wrote:
> > Beware that I am not a kernel hacker so the patch can be completely
> > wrong. But I hope it still can provide some useful information to
> > somebody who really knows what is going on here :)
>
> The problem is that the netif_wake_queue() 2.4 compatibility macro that
> was recently added to 2.2 was wrong. It should do a mark_bh(). 8139too
> uses the 2.4 macros, and therefore the netbh was always scheduled for too
> late and performance was bad.
>
> This patch should fix all drivers that use the new framework.
>
Unfortunately it doesn't. 8139too (and every other driver in 2.2.19
source tree) uses its own version of netif_wake_queue(). So your patch
doesn't solve the problem with 8139too.
Here is another patch for 8139too that places mark_bh() into the
netif_wake_queue() macro definition in 8139too.c.
Or with you patch for kcomp.h is it now better to completely remove
the macro redefinition from 8139too.c?
My first patch is more of reverse type as it places mark_bh()
(that was lost) right after the netif_wake_queue() and
calls mark_bh() more often than it wakes the queue in a manner
of the older (working) 8139too version.
oleg
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 21:00:34 EST