Did archie get back to you on this one?
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Trond Davidsen wrote:
> Hi,
> some info about the machine:
>
> vpn-gw2# uname -a
> FreeBSD vpn-gw2 4.4-STABLE FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE #2: Tue Oct 16 16:42:27
> CEST 2001 root@vpn-gw2:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VPN-GW2 i386
> vpn-gw2#
>
As Roman Kurakin wrote:
> This is the first patch of set of patches that I plan to make. These
> patches ware send several
> times as a big patch and last one wasn't even discussed. So I will try
> to send them by small
> pieces and will try to comment them.
One problem i've got with all s
Hi,
First, let me thank for the nice detailed description
of polling vs interrupts.
I have a couple of questions.
>
>As the load level increases, your interrupt rate also grows, and
>so does the work that you perform in each call to XX_intr().
>
>The increase in interrupt rate is dangerous
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:17:37AM +0530, murthy kn wrote:
...
> I have a couple of questions.
>
> 1. What will happen if a packet some packets arrive DURING the
> current call to XXX_intr() - are they processed by the
> current invocation of XXX_intr() itself without generating a new interrupt
Hi Luigi,
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> so i have a question for you -- the next step on this kind of
> optimizations is to avoid that m_pullup() allocates an mbuf
> when data is already contiguous and in a writable (non-shared)
> cluster.
>
> Garret was suggesting a new interface for this, at the beg
