Re: [lwip-users] Improving performance when using OS.

[Simon Goldschmidt]

Timmy Brolin <address@hidden> wrote:
> I had a look at the new lwip 1.4. It looks like
> LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING_INPUT is conditional on LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING.
> But that is not really necessary, is it?
> I think it should be possible to enable only
> LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING_INPUT, without enabling CORE_LOCKING for the
> netconn and socket APIs.

Well, that depends: there should be no problem with the socket/netconn API to 
use message passing (as if CORE_LOCKING==0), but the main loop of tcpip_thread 
(as well as the timer-processing mbox_wait function) will have to "lock the 
core" or it might be active in the stack at the same time as the input 
function. To achieve that, CORE_LOCKING must be splitted into "core locking 
available" and "use core locking from netconn API".

> [..] If _INPUT
> and _UDP can be made stable without too much effort, then people could
> start using those, and continue using the traditional mailbox system for
> TCP until core locking for TCP becomes a bit more stable.

Well, the problem of separating CORE_LOCKING between TCP and UDP might be that 
the current code does not know (or care) at those places if a netconn is UDP, 
TCP or RAW. This would introduce additional 'ifs', I guess (which might again 
hurt performance).

Simon
-- 
GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 &euro;/mtl.! Jetzt auch mit 
gratis Notebook-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl