Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:24:44 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Advice on a multithreaded netisr patch? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904071024070.45341@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <ea7b9c170904062209tda44636tb9a18755ec0c5bb3@mail.gmail.com> References: <gra7mq$ei8$1@ger.gmane.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904051422280.12639@fledge.watson.org> <grac1s$p56$1@ger.gmane.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904051440460.12639@fledge.watson.org> <grappq$tsg$1@ger.gmane.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904052243250.34905@fledge.watson.org> <grbcfg$poe$1@ger.gmane.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904061238250.34905@fledge.watson.org> <ea7b9c170904062209tda44636tb9a18755ec0c5bb3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote: >> This issue is almost entirely independent from things like the cache line >> miss issue, unless you hit the uncommon case of having to do work in >> m_pullup(), in which case life sucks. >> >> It would be useful to use DTrace to profile a number of the workfull >> m_foo() functions to make sure we're not hitting them in normal workloads, >> btw. > > I highly suspect m_pullup will take any real effect on RX path, given how > most of drivers allocate the mbuf for RX ring (all RX mbufs should be > mclusters). Agreed, but it's good to be sure one is right about these things. :-) Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0904071024070.45341>