> Collegues, > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:29:49PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > L> [cc-ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get more opinions] > > this good, that you have CC'ed net@, otherwise we would continue > working in parallel without collaboration.
It's a pity you didn't read the complete thread, thus the original version of my patch isn't valid anymore. > > Here is attached patch made in a collaboration by ru, pjd and me. I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays seems to be very elegant. > > We use separate mutex for polling, and we drop it before calling the > poll handler to avoid LOR and contention on this mutex. The recent version of the patch uses sx lock to protect pr[] and the array of per-interface mutexes iface_locks[]. So, all CPUs can poll different interfaces at the same time now. See the complete thread for details. > > We have definite evidence that now idle_poll and ISR poll can run > in parallel: if we remove PRF_RUNNING flag check, we got panics > because poll handlers of many drivers (e.g. if_em) are not reentrable. > > I think this patch is a step forward in direction of parallel polling > on SMP, since we now have two polling instances (ISR + idle) working > in parallel. I also mentioned that poll_idle() isn't called from anywhere in the kernel. Thus we have only 2 possible sources for polling: hardclock (per-CPU) and traps. The polling code in trap handler should also be changed a bit to check for the trap's source. I attach the most recent version of the patch. The only difference is locking in ether_poll_register() suggested by Luigi. > > -- > Totus tuus, Glebius. > GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
kern_poll.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
