From owner-freebsd-net  Wed Oct  9  9: 3:46 2002
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 E203137B401; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 09:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carp.icir.org (carp.icir.org [192.150.187.71])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8C98343E6E; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 09:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo@carp.icir.org)
Received: from carp.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by carp.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g99FoZO2050706;
	Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo@carp.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by carp.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g99FoYLA050705;
	Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:50:34 -0700
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
Cc: Christopher Smith <csmith@its.uq.edu.au>, hardware@FreeBSD.ORG,
	net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: High interrupt load on firewalls
Message-ID: <20021009085034.E48709@carp.icir.org>
References: <B9C9FA56.30E7C%csmith@its.uq.edu.au> <20021009024946.D2682-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20021009024946.D2682-100000@patrocles.silby.com>; from silby@silby.com on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:53:43AM -0500
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

my general attitude is that when you are hitting 100% cpu
utilization, small performance improvements such as those
deriving from m_getcl() are not relevant, and you might
want to restructure your sw in order to get substantial
performance improvements.

In the specific case, at least reading from the comments,
it seems that firewall processing is really the main
cpu consumer, so they should revise their ruleset more
than move to a different board, or use polling (i have polling
patches for the intel gigabit adapter)

What are the actual packet rates at which you are seeing problems ?

	cheers
	luigi

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:53:43AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
> 
> > No, we use IPFilter (and that definitely isn't going to change any time
> > soon).

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message