Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:41:48 +0200 From: "Kristof Provost" <kp@FreeBSD.org> To: "Pavel Timofeev" <timp87@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-stable stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CFT: if_bridge performance improvements Message-ID: <5D021E5B-8B7C-4DF2-ABC7-415A1D0F0B62@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAAoTqfvKcgX8nMMZh3V3g_KUy3iwAmgBt%2BMFKfq_HOkYXMiFhw@mail.gmail.com> References: <5377E42E-4C01-4BCC-B934-011AC3448B54@FreeBSD.org> <CAAoTqfvKcgX8nMMZh3V3g_KUy3iwAmgBt%2BMFKfq_HOkYXMiFhw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16 Apr 2020, at 8:34, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > Hi! > Thank you for your work! > Do you know if epair suffers from the same issue as tap? > I’ve not tested it, but I believe that epair scales significantly better than tap. It has a per-cpu mutex (or more accurately, a mutex in each of its per-cpu structures), so I’d expect much better throughput from epair than you’d see from tap. Best regards, Kristof
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5D021E5B-8B7C-4DF2-ABC7-415A1D0F0B62>