Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:04:12 -0500
From:      Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, Kip Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Driver patch to look at...
Message-ID:  <990BD290-643B-4BC7-8D64-6D4CE987025A@lakerest.net>
In-Reply-To: <201302051352.52741.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <D3AA078A-CD19-4228-A019-BE9C985895E2@lakerest.net> <201302051213.51401.jhb@freebsd.org> <0D421326-9A80-4E21-A18E-E717F5C02164@lakerest.net> <201302051352.52741.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmm

That would trade off a stack pointer + a compare
vs always doing the move.

Thats fine until I have to add the _mc() version, then the put
back would be an atomic, and most of the time the return from
this is probably not changed=85

I really would prefer not to since the compare and maybe store vs
the always store.. though the same now, would be far more expensive
in the _mc version.. if we do a _mc version of course ;-)

But I am willing to do whatever .. since this really needs to be fixed.

R
On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:52 PM, John Baldwin wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:44:01 pm Randall Stewart wrote:
>> Actually, no it is used.
>>=20
>> If you look in if_var.h int he drbr_putback() function, it does
>> a buf_ring_swap when the old mbuf pointer does not equal the
>> new mbuf pointer. This *does* happen, I crashed at least once
>> yesterday when the igb driver did something to free the original
>> mbuf and return a new mbuf with the data (prepend or some such).
>>=20
>> I also have found several issues that I have fixed this morning.. its =
been
>> crash city on my test beds..
>>=20
>> Here is the latest patch with all fixes and suggested changes from =
emaste=20
> (thanks Ed)
>=20
> Actually, one more suggestion then (since you have to keep putback).  =
It
> would be nice to not have to require 'snext' in all the callers.  How
> about replace buf_ring_swap() with a buf_ring_putback_sc() that =
accepts the
> mbuf and just stores it at the head unconditionally and have =
drbr_putback()
> use that?
>=20
> --=20
> John Baldwin
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>=20

------------------------------
Randall Stewart
803-317-4952 (cell)




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?990BD290-643B-4BC7-8D64-6D4CE987025A>