From owner-cvs-all Wed Feb 19 19:19:55 2003 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B309637B401; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d179.as4.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.139.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D25243FA3; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:19:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1K3Spef064214; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:28:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h1K3SeOQ064211; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:28:50 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:28:40 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Scott Long Cc: Andrew Gallatin , src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/aac aac.c aac_pci.c In-Reply-To: <3E54219C.9030103@btc.adaptec.com> Message-ID: <20030219212343.O64167@patrocles.silby.com> References: <200302192158.h1JLwYJn025529@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030219161458.T62705@patrocles.silby.com> <20030219181629.A46948@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030219182122.N62705@patrocles.silby.com> <3E54219C.9030103@btc.adaptec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Scott Long wrote: > busdma has been around since 3.0. It probably needs a couple of hours > of work to lock it down. Hm, icky. Is anyone in the know wrt busdma looking into handling that? I don't think we can get much done in the network drivers without touching busdma functions. > I've seen performance gains as high as 20%. Presumably this is because > you eliminate the two extra context switches that result from blocking > on Giant. I doubt that you'll see much gain in a UP system, but I > haven't benchmarked it. Once Peter commits his lazy context switching > patches, this gain won't be as dramatic anymore. > > Scott I suppose that I can always use the mutex profiling code to get a rough idea of how the situation changes as a result of locking. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message