From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Sep 12 10:44:16 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B327037B424 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e8CHi8001567; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:44:08 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Chuck Paterson Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what to do with softinterrupts? Message-ID: <20000912104408.M12231@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200009121515.JAA29329@berserker.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200009121515.JAA29329@berserker.bsdi.com>; from cp@bsdi.com on Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 09:15:04AM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Chuck Paterson [000912 08:15] wrote: > > Before you can run soft interrupts on multiple processors > I believe there is a stuff in the tcp/ip stack that can't be fixed > by simple locking. For instance ip_srcrt and tcp_saveipgen come > to mind. At a glance they just seem to be globals that ought to wind uo on the stack and passed down through the protocol levels/functions. I understand that they contain state that must be saved for the packet processing run thought ip_input->tcp_input. I do need to study the interaction more carefully, but is this not the case? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message