From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 04:38:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727E737B401 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 04:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92B743F93 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 04:38:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with ESMTP id <2003060511385000100hqg62e>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:38:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA09438; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 04:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 04:38:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Michael Shiu In-Reply-To: <012701c32b51$20068770$650019ac@athena> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does Netgraph in FBSD 5.x SMP requires GIANT lock? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:38:52 -0000 On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Michael Shiu wrote: > Dear all, > > Just like to know if the netgraph code running 5.x SMP kernel requires the > GIANT lock? Netgraph has lovking built into it but I have not had teh time yet to "thrown the switch" and run it without giant. (actually it would only have giant if the edge node that introduces the packet has giant, or if it's running as a net thread.) What is your graph like? > > I have the netgraph doing bridging right now but the performance is limited > by the CPU (right now, it is something around 100k pkt/s in 4-STABLE). > Does adding another CPU together with upgrading to 5.x be of any help? I > guess the bottleneck right now is only one thread is executing in interrupt > context with GIANT being held. Am I right? > > _Michael > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >