Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:29:46 +0400 From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r242079 - in head: sbin/ipfw share/man/man4 sys/conf sys/net sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/netpfil/ipfw Message-ID: <508A823A.30308@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <508A7762.1040106@freebsd.org> References: <201210250939.q9P9dF0q022970@svn.freebsd.org> <508960C2.6030003@freebsd.org> <508967E3.3070508@FreeBSD.org> <5089A13F.8080405@freebsd.org> <20121026112629.GC70741@FreeBSD.org> <508A7762.1040106@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26.10.2012 15:43, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> A> If you can show with your performance profiling that the sysctl >> A> isn't even necessary, you could leave it completely away and have >> A> pfil_forward enabled permanently. That would be even better for >> A> everybody. >> >> I'd prefer to have the sysctl. Benchmarking will definitely show >> no regression, because in default case packets are tagless. But if >> packets would carry 1 or 2 tags each, which don't actually belong >> to PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD, then processing would be pessimized. > > With M_FASTFWD_OURS I used an overlay of the protocol specific M_PROTO[1-5] > mbuf flags. The same can be done with M_IPFORWARD. The ipfw code then > will not only add the m_tag but also set M_IPFORWARD flag. That way no > sysctl is required and the feature is always available. The overlay > definition is in ip_var.h. It seems we have only one bit in the m_flags that can be used, so, maybe we left it to some things that can appear in the future? -- WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?508A823A.30308>