> On 28 Apr 2023, at 15:38, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 02:51:23PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
>>> On 28 Apr 2023, at 14:03, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>>>
>>> That basically means we must never call one of the pool get or put
>>> functions with kernel lock. This may be
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 02:51:23PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > On 28 Apr 2023, at 14:03, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> >
> > That basically means we must never call one of the pool get or put
> > functions with kernel lock. This may be the case currently. But
> > at this stage while we are p
> On 28 Apr 2023, at 14:03, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> That basically means we must never call one of the pool get or put
> functions with kernel lock. This may be the case currently. But
> at this stage while we are pushing locks around the network code,
> I would like to keep it as it is.
>
That basically means we must never call one of the pool get or put
functions with kernel lock. This may be the case currently. But
at this stage while we are pushing locks around the network code,
I would like to keep it as it is.
Allowing net interrupts during route pool get mutex gains nearly
Index: sys/net/route.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/route.c,v
retrieving revision 1.418
diff -u -p -r1.418 route.c
--- sys/net/route.c 26 Apr 2023 16:09:44 - 1.418
+++ sys/net/route.c 26 Apr 2023 23:00:02 -
@@ -1
