From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 14 18:01:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5519E16A4CE for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:01:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B068E43D4C for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:01:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oppermann@networx.ch) Received: (qmail 19780 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2004 18:01:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO networx.ch) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Oct 2004 18:01:37 -0000 Message-ID: <416EBF0A.CB1C0366@networx.ch> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:01:46 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <20041014174225.GB49508@cell.sick.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: small tun(4) improvement X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:01:46 -0000 Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > Collegues, > > any objections about commiting this improvement to tun(4)? > In my ng_device I have a similar function ngdwrite(), which was > cut-n-pasted from tunwrite(). And my tests with a patched ng_device have > shown 30% speedup on large writes. I don't think it will help tun(4) > to be a much faster, since tunwrite() isn't a bottleneck, but I think > it is worth considering. The patch was tested on a production PPPoE access > concentrator (RELENG_4 however). Could you check tap(4) as well? You can do the same optimization there as well (IIRC). -- Andre