From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 11 14:15:06 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B79216A4D8; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:15:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from darkness.comp.waw.pl (darkness.comp.waw.pl [195.117.238.136]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1762643D4C; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:15:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pjd@darkness.comp.waw.pl) Received: by darkness.comp.waw.pl (Postfix, from userid 1009) id 4B292ACB34; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:14:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:14:50 +0100 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek To: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> Message-ID: <20050311141450.GF9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl> References: <20050311110234.GA87255@cell.sick.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LoV0Wh4nEaYAWgxX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-PGP-Key-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/pjd.asc X-OS: FreeBSD 5.2.1-RC2 i386 cc: John Baldwin cc: Luigi Rizzo cc: Gleb Smirnoff cc: ru@FreeBSD.org cc: net@FreeBSD.org cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Giant-free polling [PATCH] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:15:06 -0000 --LoV0Wh4nEaYAWgxX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote: +> I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring +> too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays +> seems to be very elegant. Overhead? Did you run any benchmarks to prove it? I find list-version much more elegant that using an array. I also don't like the idea of calling handler method with two locks held (one sx and one mutex)... There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have access tointerface's internal mutex, which protects those fields. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! --LoV0Wh4nEaYAWgxX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCMafaForvXbEpPzQRAl+dAJ9AdTHF9ql8GoUOC5mNaUEuElND0gCgiMd1 t2kYhRWBlXV1c7b8IcoeAi4= =ndjc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LoV0Wh4nEaYAWgxX--