On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:12:26PM -0700, James Long wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 01:50:34PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 01:06:12AM -0700, James Long wrote: > > > With regard to the recent thread about looking for GIANT-LOCKs in > > > dmesg, why would one system say: > > > > > > ns : 00:56:29 /home/james> uname -v ;dmesg | grep fxp > > > FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #0: Tue Feb 20 15:47:09 PST 2007 > > > fxp0: <Intel 82559 Pro/100 Ethernet> port 0x2400-0x243f mem > > > 0xc4fff000-0xc4ffffff,0xc4e00000-0xc4efffff irq 10 at device 2.0 on pci0 > > > miibus0: <MII bus> on fxp0 > > > fxp0: Ethernet address: 00:02:a5:0a:57:73 > > > > > > > > > while a more recent build says: > > > > > > t30 : 00:56:19 /home/james> uname -v ;dmesg | grep fxp > > > FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2: Thu Mar 8 08:23:11 PST 2007 > > > fxp0: <Intel 82801CAM (ICH3) Pro/100 VE Ethernet> port 0x7400-0x743f mem > > > 0xd0200000-0xd0200fff irq 11 at device 8.0 on pci2 > > > miibus0: <MII bus> on fxp0 > > > fxp0: Ethernet address: 00:09:6b:86:82:a6 > > > fxp0: [GIANT-LOCKED] > > > > fxp is not giant locked, you can check the source for the INTR_MPSAFE > > flag in sys/dev/fxp/if_fxp.c. I'm not sure how you are seeing this, > > please describe the configuration of this system further (kernel > > config, loader.conf). > > > > Kris > > It just dawned on me when you said "INTR_MPSAFE", would having > > options IPSEC > > in the kernel config cause fxp to use GIANT? > > dmesg says in part: > > FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2: Thu Mar 8 08:23:11 PST 2007 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/T30 > WARNING: debug.mpsafenet forced to 0 as ipsec requires Giant > WARNING: MPSAFE network stack disabled, expect reduced performance.
Yes. Use FAST_IPSEC instead, it's also faster in other ways than just having better SMP scaling properties. Kris _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"