From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov  9 22:24:53 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FCFDF4;
 Sat,  9 Nov 2013 22:24:53 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B0C267A;
 Sat,  9 Nov 2013 22:24:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e9so3010889qcy.39
 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 14:24:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
 :from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=rcct2NxdTpGBHx+Oz2wAYsFMKgrp/gpXR6SPd4ZyTV0=;
 b=FKE0Z30rskCBgew2g1F30cCHAs3b+w+MIa9/mQaFaMqyxdSlEeRpFwZ9B0BdApk9BW
 qLBuBuz0zWPFYOSZxVIMRgd6CFgfhPUGnP9R4FRlWBOb9n3gJtgCogKaA0U/ynv/oAAs
 nPilHaKom+yKVCi7c3B+4weGP2K1YwJxUfHCd9ENihWndiOh/et9F4O6al+9ogXIvDXe
 UmZ5+utXc1b2Tq/Hy2GXZ9Ss3rPwiinuhwn4gqZfAuMFrkD2DFnBeS5wxKUZuRrQi1Sw
 IzrauUze2YlX3YAdaCNfj34lB2GIaz+KP/nk7MIy9nW3onb63xtdwsl00dInt17sA3u1
 MqEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.35.144 with SMTP id h16mr34132032qej.35.1384035892431;
 Sat, 09 Nov 2013 14:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.207.66 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:24:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALDtMrLAeWekT1Zp+Et8r+WzF2V2gruka_M++k2yxq=AvXv8Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALDtMr++7uYiJWyhEdYOR5vxhGSJPKFXXc8L+KRaVctUnZaiKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-VmokOp8Jo8giwnmis7VQwB6KJLAk6BwPeqw0ppZjkz7Wtsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDtMrLAeWekT1Zp+Et8r+WzF2V2gruka_M++k2yxq=AvXv8Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:24:52 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PYrVX0piB78dr8VWU1NknM1hj30
Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmono+HtaKV+vsaKncDByuvV1jUrsgAFq7NYvOG=JPbNg3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question about network stack advancements to be on the same level
 as Linux kernel 3.9+
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 22:24:53 -0000

On 9 November 2013 13:58, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those kind of advancements make much more sense for UDP than for TCP.
>
> Of course TCP would benefit from them, too, but they are really critical for
> UDP.
>
> TCP stack is already relatively advanced, and the improvements will help in
> only some really extreme high-load use cases - when the TCP listener is the
> bottleneck. On the other hand, UDP would benefit from the improvements even
> in usual ordinary use cases. If I may suggest the priority, it would make
> much more sense to start improving the stack with the UDP.

I don't mind which one gets done, as long as one of them does. :-)

I haven't yet written much UDP testing code. I'll be doing it soon. I
may even take a stab at the UDP side of things. But I'm still knee
deep in mbuf stuff at work (and wifi stuff at home) so I can't make
any guarantees.



-adrian