Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:29:21 -0400 From: Brian Feldman <green@freebsd.org> To: Ed Maste <emaste@sandvine.com>, "'Sergey Lyubka'" <devnull@uptsoft.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: memory mapped packet capturing - bpf replacement ? Message-ID: <20040615202921.GF1016@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <20040614174749.GF14722@empiric.dek.spc.org> References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533701BD40C7@mail.sandvine.com> <20040614174749.GF14722@empiric.dek.spc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:38:57AM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > > Hello Sergey. I haven't looked at your code, but I'll provide > > some comments, having implemented a mmaped ringbuffer BPF > > replacement myself. > > We've had some prior interest in this. Do you have patches? If so, I'd be > more than happy to look at them. > > Linux has something similar, but when I looked at the mechanism involved, > I was loathe to adopt the same logic because the buffer(s) involved were > allocated from userland and then mapped accordingly; we generally can't > afford to take a page fault in that path, for mutex related reasons. If I finally get to finish fixing wiring, you should simply be able to call vslock(9) in your kernel module and get that functionality. As it is, vslock(9) is broken.... -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040615202921.GF1016>