From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org  Thu Apr 16 07:41:52 2020
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288002B4365;
 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:41:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)
 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256)
 (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org",
 Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 492rlN0LQpz478X;
 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:41:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mx1.codepro.be", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK))
 (Authenticated sender: kp)
 by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E65781F43F;
 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:41:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org)
Received: by venus.codepro.be (Postfix, authenticated sender kp) id 7331FF9F9;
 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:41:49 +0200 (CEST)
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
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:41:48 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <5D021E5B-8B7C-4DF2-ABC7-415A1D0F0B62@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAoTqfvKcgX8nMMZh3V3g_KUy3iwAmgBt+MFKfq_HOkYXMiFhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5377E42E-4C01-4BCC-B934-011AC3448B54@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAAoTqfvKcgX8nMMZh3V3g_KUy3iwAmgBt+MFKfq_HOkYXMiFhw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:41:52 -0000

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