svn commit: r218232 - head/sys/netinet

Robert Watson rwatson at
Sun Feb 6 00:33:13 UTC 2011

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:

> On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:56, John Baldwin wrote:
>> The difference here is that FOREACH_THREAD_IN_PROC() is just a 
>> TAILQ_FOREACH().  The CPU iterators are more complex.
>> I agree that that we should have topology-aware iterators, though part of 
>> the problem is what do you iterate?  We'd have to create new sets of 
>> package and core IDs.
>> For HWTHREAD_FOREACH() you can already use CPU_FOREACH().
> Yeah, I have no real opinion on spelling at all. Rather, I'm of the opinion 
> that we need some more semantics in order to express useful concepts, and 
> make it easy to represent things like "one X per package", and "find me the 
> closest X to which I wish to enqueue this request".

And just to expand on this thought slightly: I'd like it to answer the 
question without dirtying cache lines for shared data (so no locks, etc). 
That way we can do it cheaply per-packet if need be.


More information about the svn-src-all mailing list