From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct  6 16:17:20 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: arch@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A7716A41F;
	Thu,  6 Oct 2005 16:17:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from _pppp@mail.ru)
Received: from f49.mail.ru (f49.mail.ru [194.67.57.85])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA1343D6A;
	Thu,  6 Oct 2005 16:17:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from _pppp@mail.ru)
Received: from mail by f49.mail.ru with local 
	id 1ENYQn-000AAm-00; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:17:17 +0400
Received: from [212.5.170.174] by win.mail.ru with HTTP;
	Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:17:17 +0400
From: dima <_pppp@mail.ru>
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
X-Originating-IP: [212.5.170.174]
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:17:17 +0400
In-Reply-To: <20050930211716.GP45345@cell.sick.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <E1ENYQn-000AAm-00._pppp-mail-ru@f49.mail.ru>
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re[2]: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dima <_pppp@mail.ru>
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:17:21 -0000

Seems to be a first considerable step regarding the ideas discussed in March :)
But, my idea about the separate locking of each interface dissappeared from this implementation. mtx_poll is good to protect the pollrec array and other sensitive variables. But we could get advantage of SMP machines writing polling loops like this:

for( i = 0; i < poll_handlers; ++i ) {
  mtx_lock( &iface_lock[i] );
  pr[i].handler(pr[i].ifp, POLL_ONLY, count);
  mtx_unlock( &iface_lock[i] );
}