Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 06:21:14 -0700 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@netflix.com> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r304218 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <16561701-B1C6-4BE3-B9BA-3535F564620F@netflix.com> In-Reply-To: <20160816131805.GK22212@zxy.spb.ru> References: <201608161240.u7GCeuWS082118@repo.freebsd.org> <20160816131805.GK22212@zxy.spb.ru>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In theory it *could* be MFC’d to stable-10 and 11 but I am not sure we want to do that. I am told by Drew that it does improve performance since in stable-10 you are getting the INFO_WLOCK() but I am not sure if folks want it MFC’d… One thing that this code leads us towards is we *in theory* could move the lock acquisition to the timer code itself (I think).. we would have to make sure that the callout functions did do the unlock since thats part of the lock-dance with reference… but its theoretically possible :-) R > On Aug 16, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:40:56PM +0000, Randall Stewart wrote: > >> Author: rrs >> Date: Tue Aug 16 12:40:56 2016 >> New Revision: 304218 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/304218 >> >> Log: >> This cleans up the timer code in TCP and also makes it so we do not >> take the INFO lock *unless* we are really going to delete the TCB. >> >> Differential Revision: D7136 > > Is this related to stable/10? -------- Randall Stewart rrs@netflix.com 803-317-4952help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16561701-B1C6-4BE3-B9BA-3535F564620F>