From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Fri May 10 18:53:50 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E5E15AA54F; Fri, 10 May 2019 18:53:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (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 "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBAD186CE0; Fri, 10 May 2019 18:53:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id BE467B642; Fri, 10 May 2019 18:53:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 18:53:49 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" Cc: Andrew Gallatin , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r347410 - in head: . sys/amd64/conf sys/arm/conf sys/arm64/conf sys/i386/conf sys/powerpc/conf sys/riscv/conf sys/sparc64/conf Message-ID: <20190510185349.GA86585@FreeBSD.org> References: <201905092238.x49McFCO015665@repo.freebsd.org> <20190510084620.GA47901@FreeBSD.org> <1a15a141-89b7-9169-e4cc-df585e92ada1@yandex.ru> <20190510183939.GA75776@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CBAD186CE0 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.95 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.959,0]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.993,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 18:53:50 -0000 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:44:58PM +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 10.05.2019 21:39, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > >> The second cause -- reduce overhead that IPSEC produces even when it > >> is not used. > > > > So does it mean that if I don't plan to use IPSEC, I can safely remove > > IPSEC_SUPPORT from my config and also get slight performance boost? > > Yes, currently each call to IPsec has check like > `if (ipsec_enabled) {...}`, when you build the kernel without > IPSEC/IPSEC_SUPPORT, this check will be removed too, this can add some > performance boost :-) Got it. :-) Thanks for the fast response (and proper quoting). ./danfe