Re: splx() overhead.

2001-10-08 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011008 11:46] wrote: > > On 08-Oct-01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In doing some kernel profiling analysis it seems that splx is taking up big > > chunks of time. > > That's becaause splx() can result in interrupts blocked during an spl() getting > a chance t

RE: splx() overhead.

2001-10-08 Thread John Baldwin
On 08-Oct-01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In doing some kernel profiling analysis it seems that splx is taking up big > chunks of time. That's becaause splx() can result in interrupts blocked during an spl() getting a chance to run, including soft interrrupts such as softclock and the network sof

Re: splx() overhead.

2001-10-08 Thread Brooks Davis
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:08:14PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In doing some kernel profiling analysis it seems that splx is taking up big > chunks of time. > > The mbuf macros call splimp()..splx() explicitly..are they required at > interrupt time? Is there a higher performance way of pr

splx() overhead.

2001-10-08 Thread Bsdguru
In doing some kernel profiling analysis it seems that splx is taking up big chunks of time. The mbuf macros call splimp()..splx() explicitly..are they required at interrupt time? Is there a higher performance way of protecting the necessary code? B To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECT