https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #2 from Aleksandr Fedorov <aleksandr.fedo...@itglobal.com> --- Yes, it seems that netgraph needs some love. In this case, the function ngc_send() entering to the epoch. So, this is the control path, not data. Data path enter to the epoch from ngthread(), ng_callout_trampoline() and if node really need it: http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_base.c#3423 http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_base.c#3778 http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_device.c#475 After a quick research (http://bxr.su/search?q=NET_EPOCH_ENTER&defs=&refs=&path=sys%2Fnetgraph&project=FreeBSD): 1. http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_ip_input.c#131 - already in epoch. 2. http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_ether.c#601 - already in epoch. 3. http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_ether.c#743 - already in epoch. 4. http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_eiface.c#517 - already in epoch. 5. http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_iface.c#735 - already in epoch. Do we really need to entering the epoch from control path? http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_socket.c#341 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
