Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:58:16 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swi_net Message-ID: <20011218125816.N377@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112181017000.36281-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20011218104750.M377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112181017000.36281-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 10:19:23AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > Netgraph in -current uses netisr routines to run its > dequeueing system (different to -stable which uses it as a netisr > from interrupt scope as per normal). Thats fine - I'm not removing netisrs completely. I just wanted to add the ability to do direct dispatching as well. This is useful for non-interrupt driven execution, since the packet would get pushed through the stack as far as possible. Also, I wasn't able to remove ngintr() from -stable, since it uses non-standard queue handling. There are a few other cases like this as well; they are still handled in the normal fashion. One thing to note is that so far, I haven't seen any benefit of using a direct dispatch over the netisr approach; but then again, it may be that I'm simply not stressing my system enough. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011218125816.N377>