Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:56:37 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Emeric POUPON <emeric.poupon@stormshield.eu>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fragment questions Message-ID: <550C6D65.6070409@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=LkFc4sqbBSVeLE=7adV1nCuRDUO4ECUv8r6EYp=Oezw@mail.gmail.com> References: <522774578.25519037.1426765109046.JavaMail.zimbra@stormshield.eu> <550AC709.1050404@selasky.org> <2047974073.25663527.1426858267777.JavaMail.zimbra@stormshield.eu> <550C5FC6.6020401@selasky.org> <CAJ-Vmo=LkFc4sqbBSVeLE=7adV1nCuRDUO4ECUv8r6EYp=Oezw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/20/15 19:02, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> wrote: >> On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote: >>> >>> - in the ip_newid macro, we do "htons(V_ip_id++))" if we do not use >>> randomized id. >> >>> In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id. >> >> Will using a mutex or an atomic macro fix this issue when incrementing the >> V_ip_id ? > > It will, but it'll ping-pong between multiple cores and slow things > down at high pps. > Hi, Maybe we can have the V_ip_id per CPU and use the lower 8-bits as random CPU core number? OK? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?550C6D65.6070409>