Subject: Re: SMP re-entrancy in kernel drivers/"bottom half?"
To: Daniel Carosone <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/17/2003 18:30:43
In message <20031218021053.GK6077@bcd.geek.com.au>Daniel Carosone writes
>Which the smp-safe driver will have to aquire (via traditional splX?)
>before maniupulating. mbuf chains seem the logical example.
Allocating new mbuf chains (or freeing existing ones), yes.
If the mbuf is already hanging off a NIC structure, then the
per-softc spinlock is all you need.
>It certainly sounds like a reasonable compromise, but whether its
>useful or not will need to be measured (ie, do they spend most of
>their time holding the global locks on mbufs anyway).
Most of the drivers I've profiled spend most of their time either:
a) banging registers on busses at 33Mhz to 133Mhz (*very* compared to GHz
CPU cycles), or
b) walking through internal softc structures.
Other operations can be combined (instead of freeing Tx-done mbufs one
at a time, link them into a monster chain and free the lot in one
`monster' free() call, which acquires and releases the spinklock once.
Or start adding per-CPU caches of free objects. Which is worth doing
anyway, once you get past very small UMA SMP systems.
>Fortunately, it sounds like implementing it for the purposes of the
>experiment should be relatively easy.
Yep, I thought that was an important consideration. :-/.