Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:56:55 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Daniel Eriksson <daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: if_re locking patch... Message-ID: <20040904235655.GO29902@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAAwJl397SAaEegJq84czWutAEAAAAA@telia.com> References: <20040825175250.GO29902@funkthat.com> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAAwJl397SAaEegJq84czWutAEAAAAA@telia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eriksson wrote this message on Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 12:33 +0200:
> John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> > To expand upon the patch posted previously, I have cribbed bms's rl
> > locking, and ported it to re. This makes the interrupt MPSAFE along
> > with the rest of the driver. No more GIANT LOCKED messages for re. :)
>
> I saw that this was committed to HEAD yesterday. I have a machine with a
> 8169-based NIC that is doing ~300GB on a daily basis that I'd love to try to
> run with debug.mpsafenet=1. Do you think the patch that went into HEAD has
> been tested enough that it is safe to try it?
>
> It's a UP machine using POLLING mode (HZ=2000), if that makes any
> difference.
Well, as demonstrated by ru's commit (thanks ru!).. I had not tested
DEVICE_POLLING... But this afternoon I did some testing, and did not
have any troubles... The only problems w/ netperf was that the *RR*
tests were a bit slow, but this is to be expected due to DEVICE_POLLING..
But as I mentioned, the re driver was originally based on the rl, so I
doubt there'll be much trouble since rl's locking has been in the tree
for quite a while longer...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040904235655.GO29902>