Subject: Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup - CPU#X

From: Jarek Poplawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:38:45 +0100

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:38:09PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
...
> Given that premise, we might as well let one CPU transmit as much
> as possible since moving to another CPU after each packet is going
> to bounce a lot more than just the spin lock and that is going to
> be expensive.

Considering this, I wonder why using this __LINK_STATE_QDISC_RUNNING
flag to control enqueuing as well would be a wrong idea? Wouldn't this
enforce pseudo affinity?

Regards,
Jarek P.