Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:35:29 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com>, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mbuf.h src/sys/kern uipc_mbuf.c Message-ID: <20010403173529.O12164@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200104040020.f340Kgi74269@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:20:42PM -0700 References: <200104030315.f333FCX69312@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010403140457.B2952@electricjellyfish.net> <200104031813.f33ID4b58965@earth.backplane.com> <20010403194004.A15434@technokratis.com> <200104040020.f340Kgi74269@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> [010403 17:21] wrote: > : The reason for the removal isn't related to pollution of system > :structures per se (i.e. bloat). There were really only three locks, one > :for each free list. > : The removal is, the way I see it, a slight pessimization in some > :cases at this moment, due to the increase of contention again, in some cases. > :... > > Ok... hmm. Since compare-exchange support is mandatory now, why not > simply use it to implement per-cpu free lists for mbufs that does not > require any (mutex) locking at all? This solves the contention problem > and the interrupt problem. While this is a good idea, it doesn't give us a consistant view of the stats without additional atomic ops or critical regions. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010403173529.O12164>