Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:48:22 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Subject: Re: kern/176446: [netinet] [patch] Concurrency in ixgbe driving out-of-order packet process and spurious RST Message-ID: <514334B6.9080001@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201303150957.26192.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201303141500.r2EF01EQ079753@freefall.freebsd.org> <CAFMmRNyssUsPaHt66qkW-nRpENcAF1u5D67u6jAwpe3GvuC8og@mail.gmail.com> <201303150957.26192.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15.03.2013 14:57, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:59:44 pm Ryan Stone wrote: >> What's the benefit in having a both an interrupt thread and task that >> performs the same function? It seems to me that having two threads that do >> the same job is what is making this so complicated. > > Yes, yes it is. I have a branch that has changes to interrupt threads where > you can have an interrupt handler reschedule itself. That prevents this class > of problems as the handler always runs in the interrupt thread. > > I really should get that patch into HEAD someday. I've posted it to arch@ > twice now I think. :( It also fixes interrupt filters to really work properly > and be on by default. Do you have a link to that patch? -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?514334B6.9080001>