> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I guess I still don't see why that would be worse
> than spinning - in 
> >>> either case the ip_input thread is not capable of
> doing anything.  
> >>> You could make the same argument when using a
> software crypto 
> >>> provider.   I think if we're worried about
> holding up ip_input(), 
> >>> which seems like a valid concern, then even the
> software crypto 
> >>> providers should be handled asynchronously.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not talking about consuming cycles.  I'm not
> talking about wall 
> >> clock time considerations.  I'm talking about
> potential deadlocks due 
> >> to cv_wait.
> >>
> >> You must -not- under any conditions cv_wait while
> in ip_input's 
> >> path.  Because you don't know anything about what
> locks or PIL the 
> >> calling context is coming from.
> >
> >
> > But no locks should be held....  If the contention
> is we have to guard 
> > against a buggy NIC driver then yes.  However, we
> will sacrifice 
> > performance to defend against bad behavior. 
> 
> Its just _just_ locks.  (Although that concern arises
> as well.)  Its the 
> fact that the read you're running on may be in
> interrupt context.

If ip_input() is in soft ring thread (which is always the case in Niagara 2), 
is it ok to be cv_wait()'ed ?

Chi-Chang

> 
> Please, please, don't try to come up with some
> hackery to make this 
> work.  Its best if we adhere to the rule that
> ip_input is called from 
> streams functions, and must adhere to the same rules
> that all other 
> streams functions follow that.... that is that thou
> shalt not sleep.
> 
> Doing anything else is likely to cause spectacular
> failure at some point 
> in the future.
> 
>     -- Garrett
>  -gary
> 
> >>
> >>     -- Garrett
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -gary
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     -- Garrett
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -gary
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     -- Garrett
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -gary
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>     -- Garrett
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Right?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>   
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> networking-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
>
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to