From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Oct  8  9: 8:19 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6106037B408
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon,  8 Oct 2001 09:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Bsdguru@aol.com
	by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id n.16e.20f7124 (3974)
	 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:08:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bsdguru@aol.com
Message-ID: <16e.20f7124.28f3296e@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:08:14 EDT
Subject: splx() overhead.
To: hackers@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-hackers.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

In doing some kernel profiling analysis it seems that splx is taking up big 
chunks of time.

The mbuf macros call splimp()..splx() explicitly..are they required at 
interrupt time? Is there a higher performance way of protecting the necessary 
code?

B

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message