Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:24:46 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netgraph and SMP Message-ID: <80663.976310686@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:21:28 MST." <200012082121.eB8LLSQ07456@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200012082121.eB8LLSQ07456@berserker.bsdi.com>, Chuck Paterson write s: > >For uses such as barriers for loading and unloading it is >possible to have the counters and entry barriers all PCPU. You can then >use more complex mechanisms to set the low level barrier and interrogate >the counters. Terry ->>may<<- view this as another way of doing >what he is suggesting. The thing that has me worried here is that using locking (as opposed to atomic ops) in netgraph means that will expose netgraph paths to heavy-duty locking synchronism, since TCP, UDP, IP, Mbuf will also use a (separate) locking domain. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?80663.976310686>