From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 27 22:40: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from anansi.vpha.health.ufl.edu (anansi.vpha.health.ufl.edu [159.178.78.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB3637B419 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 22:40:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dymphna@localhost) by anansi.vpha.health.ufl.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01182; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:40:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:40:00 -0500 From: sridharv@ufl.edu Message-Id: <200112280640.BAA01182@anansi.vpha.health.ufl.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: anansi.vpha.health.ufl.edu: dymphna set sender to sridharv@ufl.edu using -f To: hackers@freebsd.org Reply-To: sridharv@ufl.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10 X-Originating-IP: 216.78.163.85 Subject: IP queue question Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I was reading TCP/IP Vol 2 by douglas comer. In that he has one queue for each interface from which the IP layer processes the incoming datagrams. He has used round-robin for fairness. I checked up the BSD code and it seems to use only one queue 'ipintrq'. The ethernet driver places the mbuf in this queue for an IP payload. Comer has also asked a review question pertaining to the disadvantage of having a single queue ( which i presume inhibits fair scheduling and stuff) Have I interpreted the code correctly? Y is this so in BSD? Also when I took a look at FreeBSD ipinput code the ipintr function which handles the software interrupt had a comment which said " to go away sometime soon" . Why and what is the alternative? The fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly - Who moved my cheese To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message