> > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:11:58 +0100
> > From: Martin Pieuchot
> >
> > On 12/11/16(Sat) 15:52, patrick keshishian wrote:
> > > Ahh... seems the culprit is softclock_thread added 2016/09/22
> > > (kern/kern_timeout.c mpi@).
> >
> > I'd suggest we simply skip kernel thread when calculating th
Hi,
The !r->rt case is only used by af-to. pf_route6() calls ip6_output()
to do the work while pf_route() has some custom implementation for
that. It is simpler to call ip_output() or ip6_output() from
pf_test() directly.
ok?
bluhm
Index: net/pf.c
=
> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:11:58 +0100
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> On 12/11/16(Sat) 15:52, patrick keshishian wrote:
> > Ahh... seems the culprit is softclock_thread added 2016/09/22
> > (kern/kern_timeout.c mpi@).
>
> I'd suggest we simply skip kernel thread when calculating the load.
Hmm, I'
On 12/11/16(Sat) 15:52, patrick keshishian wrote:
> Ahh... seems the culprit is softclock_thread added 2016/09/22
> (kern/kern_timeout.c mpi@).
I'd suggest we simply skip kernel thread when calculating the load.
Since we're slowly moving code executed in software interrupt
context to kernel threa
On 14 November 2016 at 09:38, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 14/11/16(Mon) 14:29, David Gwynne wrote:
>> its as close to the ipstat change as i can make it.
>>
>> ok?
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -142,6 +143,7 @@ void udp_notify(struct inpcb *, int);
>> void
>> udp_init(void)
>> {
>> + udpcounters =
> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:51:03 +0100
> From: Gerhard Roth
>
> Hi,
>
> according to the NCM spec, the list of datagram pointer entries has to
> be terminated with an entry where wDatagramIndex and wDatagramLen are
> zero. Not all implementations seem to follow that rule: otto@ had one
> that o
Hi,
according to the NCM spec, the list of datagram pointer entries has to
be terminated with an entry where wDatagramIndex and wDatagramLen are
zero. Not all implementations seem to follow that rule: otto@ had one
that only sets the index to zero while using an arbitrary length value.
The patch
On 13/09/16(Tue) 12:23, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Here's the big scary diff I've been using for some months now to stop
> grabbing the KERNEL_LOCK() in bpf_mtap(9). This has been originally
> written to prevent lock ordering inside pf_test(). Now that we're
> heading toward using a rwlock, we won'
On 14/11/16(Mon) 14:29, David Gwynne wrote:
> its as close to the ipstat change as i can make it.
>
> ok?
[...]
> @@ -142,6 +143,7 @@ void udp_notify(struct inpcb *, int);
> void
> udp_init(void)
> {
> + udpcounters = counters_alloc(udps_ncounters, M_COUNTERS);
No need to pass M_CO
