Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:30:45 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel stack size and stacking: do we have a problem ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112201229200.46573-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20011220135105.F48837@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
basically yes, after N levels, switch to what netisr() does. then you get another N levels :-) The reason I hadn't checked it in is because I was thinking about whether it should be N levels or N bytes of stack used.... On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [011220 13:00] wrote: > > Netgraph has a bounding scheme that archie and I came up with, but > > it has not been committed yet. basically, in the -current version, > > the mbufs are passed with an itteration counter, and > > if you directly execute another module you increment it. If you queue the > > item you clear it to 0. After it reaches a limit of N the subsystem will > > queue it rather than try run the next layer directly. > > I have code to do that here and I've been thinking about checking it in.. > > That sounds like an excellent idea. > > You're saying basically switch to phk's thread dispatch method when > you hit N levels of nesting, right? > > -Alfred > 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0112201229200.46573-100000>