From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Dec 8 13:24:54 2000 From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 8 13:24:52 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80E637B400; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB8LOkL80665; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:24:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Chuck Paterson Cc: Mike Smith , smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netgraph and SMP In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:21:28 MST." <200012082121.eB8LLSQ07456@berserker.bsdi.com> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:24:46 +0100 Message-ID: <80663.976310686@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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