From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Dec 18 14:48:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from technokratis.com (modemcable099.144-201-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.144.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC0437B41A for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by technokratis.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) id fBIMsMK37664; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:54:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:54:21 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Jonathan Lemon , Bruce Evans , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swi_net Message-ID: <20011218175421.A37567@technokratis.com> References: <20011213091957.B39991@iguana.aciri.org> <20011219010205.P4481-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20011218104750.M377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20011218134149.A89299@iguana.aciri.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011218134149.A89299@iguana.aciri.org>; from rizzo@aciri.org on Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:41:50PM -0800 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 01:41:50PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > I'm planning on revising swi_net so that it is possible to run all > > network processing under the device interrupt instead of deferring > > things to a netisr(). This also has the advantage of eliminating all > > The thing is, some processing can be quite long (e.g. IPSec, very > long ipfw rulesets, multicast when you have a large number of > sockets trying to fetch the packet, etc.), so it is not 100% > desirable having it run in interrupt context. I think it's good to have the possibility of processing in interrupt context while, at the same time, being able to easily turn it off for situations like the ones you bring up. While we're on the subject, running the stack in interrupt context seems to be an attempt to, mainly, remedy the load problem where we have a lot of interrupts and the soft int thread doesn't even get a chance to run... so we have a sort of livelock situation. For the cases that you describe, how effective do you think it would be to do as we presently do and just schedule the soft net thread to run, return from the interrupt but, when under load figure out a way to bump up the priority of the softnetisr thread enough so that it does get a chance to run? > cheers > luigi > -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- > Luigi RIZZO, luigi@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione > http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa > TEL/FAX: +39-050-568.533/522 . via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) > Mobile +39-347-0373137 > -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message