From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 23 22:40:52 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0420E1065683; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:40:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-current@mawer.org) Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out4.iinet.net.au (outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out4.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4303A8FC14; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:40:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-current@mawer.org) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkwBANJQD0jLzq3r/2dsb2JhbAAIrjU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,701,1199631600"; d="scan'208";a="211151520" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.24.1.1]) ([203.206.173.235]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out4.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2008 06:10:44 +0800 Message-ID: <480FB389.2030102@mawer.org> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:09:13 +1000 From: Antony Mawer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <8481.1208889581@critter.freebsd.dk> <480E3E66.3000303@samsco.org> <480E589C.8010108@delphij.net> <480EE8B2.2020907@higis.ru> <20080423154626.F64388@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20080423154626.F64388@fledge.watson.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Dmitriy Kirhlarov Subject: Re: Http Accept filters (accf_http) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:40:52 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: ... > I'm aware of a few problems relating to accept filters, and "fixing" > them has been on my todo list for several years. Unfortunately, other > things keep getting ahead of that in the todo list. One known issue is > that accept filters aren't entirely happy with the new multi-processor > locking world order. Hi Robert, Does this mean that on a multi-core system, one is better avoiding accept filters and accepting a small latency hit in return for better SMP scalability/reduced lock contention? --Antony