On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:01:03PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 06/02/16 14:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:19:56PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > On 06/02/16 13:14, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > + callout_reset(&rxq->rx_refill, hz/10, > > > > xn_alloc_rx_buffers_callout, > > > > + rxq); > > > > > > Maybe use callout_reset_curcpu() to take advantage of callout's SMP > > > capabilities ? > > > > Yes, that's fine. But what's the benefit of it? I don't really care whether > > the callout is run on the current CPU or not. Is callout_reset_curcpu > > cheaper than callout_reset? > > > > Hi, > > It is maybe not cheaper, but it will distribute the load of the > xn_alloc_rx_buffers_callout() callback, to the current CPU calling > callout_reset_curcpu(). Else xn_alloc_rx_buffers_callout() will always be > called from callback thread zero.
Thanks for the clarification. I did get the impression that callout_reset already distributed the callbacks across the number of available CPUs, maybe the man page should be expanded to explain this? I've committed the change as r301204. Roger. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
