Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 25 May 2006 05:17:04 +0200
From:      Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Cc:        Gordon Bergling <gbergling@0xfce3.net>
Subject:   Re: Take 2: new IP Checksum Code from DragonFlyBSD
Message-ID:  <200605250517.12054.max@love2party.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060524180802.GA59176@central.0xfce3.net>
References:  <20060524180802.GA59176@central.0xfce3.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart30259858.g57y1m2i5V
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 20:08, Gordon Bergling wrote:
> a few month ago I ported DragonFlyBSD's IP checksum code to FreeBSD.
> My first try wasn't complete and I had forgotten it by the time. Now I
> hope I have addressed the former mistakes and it maybe included in the
> tree. ;)
>
> The patch can be found at
> http://generic.0xfce3.net/20060524-ipchecksum.patch
>
> This patch modifies the i386, amd64 and pc98 architectures. Matt Dillons
> new implementation is machine indepement, but there are some asm
> files/code with seems for me i386 centric. I don't know assembler, so I
> can't tell much about it.

I'm a little scared about this.  We have had several problems in the=20
checksumming code that were due to -O2 or -O0 that screwed up just a little=
=20
of the assembly and *boom* everything went downhill.  I do appreciate you=20
stepping up porting something useful, but I'd be more comfortable if you=20
actually knew what you are doing.

That said, can somebody with real assembly knowledge and maybe even for=20
sparc64 or the like step up and take a look at this?  I think we should not=
=20
import something unless we fully understand it!

I am confident that Matt knew what he was doing, but I am not sure that the=
=20
efforts on Dragonfly are compatible with !i386/amd64 ... FreeBSD, however=20
still cares about big endian architectures and others, don't we?

> I applied the patch to RELENG_6 and have done a simple netperf
> benchmark. The machine was a PIII 900.
>
> The ministat output:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=2D-
>- x netperf-localhost-plain.txt
> + netperf-localhost-ncksum.txt
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=2D-
>+
>
> |      x     x     x      x        +             ++               +      =
=20
> | | xx    x     x  xx xxx    x  x x  x+x   *+x x +  +++   ++  +  + + ++++=
+=20
> |  +|
> |
> |        |__________M_A____________|        |__________A___________|     =
=20
> |        | |
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=2D-
>+ N           Min           Max        Median           Avg        Stddev =
x=20
> 22        707.31        730.41        717.37     718.53909     6.7389076 =
+=20
> 22        725.57        746.46       736.535     736.51727     6.3001188
> Difference at 95.0% confidence
> 	17.9782 +/- 3.96904
> 	2.50205% +/- 0.552377%
> 	(Student's t, pooled s =3D 6.5232)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=2D-
>-
>
> Any comments, correctures are very appreciated.
>
> best regards,
>
> 	Gordon

=2D-=20
/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier@freebsd.org
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier@EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News

--nextPart30259858.g57y1m2i5V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBEdSG4XyyEoT62BG0RAlC7AJ4j+Cj7LqYkNSwXHhEkEZ2gvLorbACfXT6Q
Ww8Vxyf3NhDaIGy583iaN+k=
=+KYL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart30259858.g57y1m2i5V--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605250517.12054.max>