Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 03:14:42 -0400 From: Chris Buechler <cmb@pfsense.org> To: pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] SMP-friendly pf Message-ID: <CAOmxWMV_JVLkOkPGskR1v54rgqYzGNLsOq_J_nT-2HQwF%2Bj6aw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120608061737.GA28197@glebius.int.ru> References: <20120608061737.GA28197@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote: > =A0Hello, networkers! > > =A0[net@ in Cc, but further discussion should go on pf@] > > =A0As you already probably know, or some may be don't yet know, the pf(4) > subsystem in FreeBSD is currently working under a single mutex. This mute= x > is acquired right at the beginning of any packet processing, and is dropp= ed > at the end. While one thread is in pf(4) all other threads are blocked on > that mutex. > > =A0Meanwhile modern computers are getting more and more cores, and modern > network cards getting more MSI interrupts, each serviced by a separate ke= rnel > thread in FreeBSD. So the single pf lock, which I call "the pf Giant" :),= is > getting a point of hard contention. > > =A0Three and a half months ago I've started on a project "SMP-friendly pf= ", > which recently have entered alpha stage. As you see from the subject of t= his > mail, this is call for testing. > > > =A0Willing to test? > Absolutely. Are there any particular areas specifically that you would like some testing focus on? Obviously testing everything is needed to ensure nothing is broken, and I'm definitely interested in doing some performance comparisons on SMP and non-SMP hardware. But not sure what areas you've already focused on, and what areas you feel need more testing focus than others, if any. Appreciate your work on this! Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOmxWMV_JVLkOkPGskR1v54rgqYzGNLsOq_J_nT-2HQwF%2Bj6aw>