Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:32:10 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Bsdguru@aol.com Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: splx() overhead. Message-ID: <20011008093210.A27459@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> In-Reply-To: <16e.20f7124.28f3296e@aol.com>; from Bsdguru@aol.com on Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:08:14PM -0400 References: <16e.20f7124.28f3296e@aol.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:08:14PM -0400, Bsdguru@aol.com wrote: > 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? Yes and yes. spl macros are now no-ops in current and are being replaced by locks which protect data structures. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7wdUJXY6L6fI4GtQRAvwYAJ9WCr1Bc1mZ7qZCsN83D6L/Z564ewCgjVJj g+yTShkEGn4R6ahuhfLtLJc= =UGSZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011008093210.A27459>