From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Dec 18 10:59:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (66-188-92-95.mad.wi.charter.com [66.188.92.95]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42AF37B405 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:59:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBIIwGP36832; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:58:16 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:58:16 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Julian Elischer Cc: Jonathan Lemon , Bruce Evans , Luigi Rizzo , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swi_net Message-ID: <20011218125816.N377@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <20011218104750.M377@prism.flugsvamp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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