On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:16:45PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
J On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:49:59 am Ryan Stone wrote:
J I know that there have been a lot of discussions about fixing how
J packets are handed off to ifnets due to the current methods being
J extremely race-prone. Has there
On Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29:50 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 4:00:04 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
So, you mean having them create their own buf ring I assume? Would be
easy
enough to hack some
On Monday, September 17, 2012 7:16:27 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
There's a lot less cache in these boards. Going through the stack
trace all the way and back for each packet is actually quite
expensive.
Then there's the overhead of having if_start() be called multiple
times, concurrently, from
I know that there have been a lot of discussions about fixing how
packets are handed off to ifnets due to the current methods being
extremely race-prone. Has there been any consensus on how the problem
is going to be solved?
In my particular case, I've seen an if_bridge interface whose if_snd
On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:49:59 am Ryan Stone wrote:
I know that there have been a lot of discussions about fixing how
packets are handed off to ifnets due to the current methods being
extremely race-prone. Has there been any consensus on how the problem
is going to be solved?
In my
On 17 September 2012 10:16, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
I think for if_bridge the fix is that it no longer uses if_start. :)
:)
For real hardware you will get some sort of TX completion interrupt that will
restart the transmit queue. Virtual software-only interfaces such as vlan(4)
On Monday, September 17, 2012 1:45:12 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 17 September 2012 10:16, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
I think for if_bridge the fix is that it no longer uses if_start. :)
:)
For real hardware you will get some sort of TX completion interrupt that
will
So, you mean having them create their own buf ring I assume? Would be easy
enough to hack some code and try it if someone is so inclined?
Jack
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:03 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 1:45:12 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 17 September
On Monday, September 17, 2012 4:00:04 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
So, you mean having them create their own buf ring I assume? Would be easy
enough to hack some code and try it if someone is so inclined?
No, that would be backwards (back to giving them a queue). Adrian's
suggestion is to provide a
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 4:00:04 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
So, you mean having them create their own buf ring I assume? Would be
easy
enough to hack some code and try it if someone is so inclined?
No, that would be
There's a lot less cache in these boards. Going through the stack
trace all the way and back for each packet is actually quite
expensive.
Then there's the overhead of having if_start() be called multiple
times, concurrently, from multiple senders. It's fine for a wifi AP
setup where the
11 matches
Mail list logo
