On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
>
>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 4:50 AM, Ed Schouten wrote:
>>
>> Hi Luiz,
>>
>> 2015-07-31 23:43 GMT+02:00 Luiz Otavio O Souza :
>>> - while (d->bd_hbuf_in_use)
>>> - mtx_sleep(&d->bd_hbuf_in_use, &d->bd_lock,
>>> -
> On Aug 1, 2015, at 4:50 AM, Ed Schouten wrote:
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> 2015-07-31 23:43 GMT+02:00 Luiz Otavio O Souza :
>> - while (d->bd_hbuf_in_use)
>> - mtx_sleep(&d->bd_hbuf_in_use, &d->bd_lock,
>> - PRINET, "bd_hbuf", 0);
>
> Would
Hi Luiz,
2015-07-31 23:43 GMT+02:00 Luiz Otavio O Souza :
> - while (d->bd_hbuf_in_use)
> - mtx_sleep(&d->bd_hbuf_in_use, &d->bd_lock,
> - PRINET, "bd_hbuf", 0);
Would it make sense to replace them by an assertion, instead of
omitting
Author: loos
Date: Fri Jul 31 21:43:27 2015
New Revision: 286142
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/286142
Log:
Remove two unnecessary sleeps from the hot path in bpf(4).
The first one never triggers because bpf_canfreebuf() can only be true for
zero-copy buffers and zero-copy
