From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 31 14:35:09 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1406E0C
 for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:35:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D653A1C
 for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:35:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p9so537769lbv.0
 for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=BGmzeVCzv3jEeKoHiWLscCsjU0gwRhDvlxvPUpjOp5A=;
 b=tvWNVUt5ldUk0Y/VvGt3cy9irjLq48drzZuGKKVmNo7MUVEzz/wY3uk5udjv3dq1RS
 XGt2P5qUYI8fBlqpLC6LJL58t8jGaUme0TkMiW7Vfe9keyeGxlHqmTHEkNt5i+rPjGzs
 oIdcDqyoYgcb35jq1EwBJHc1Gq4uyWJcLFgJrPr7r0IfoXSI99bf1mpw6YuHV2DM39y5
 N0l1f+0fKeeYUN3KsExddZW4ygAaZckRdjOAnSqo/MkQbH0BNN/IZoNS3nlIY9ONHSw1
 roRY6GHIpLQ+eGvkJj47kvznPL5EFVurOArsZxJcebFzmk5sU9vGkytI894xFGr4Kdvg
 rMfg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.162.41 with SMTP id xx9mr26394736lbb.21.1414766106436;
 Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.93 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:35:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOb=YYSCdCUcn+tWuhKLmaGeSdFE4Je_fDtcX8iEidpE2VUQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: 9.x vs 10.x PF performance using ALTQ
From: Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter
 \(pf\)" <freebsd-pf.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-pf>,
 <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
 <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:35:09 -0000

Hello,

I have a question about the performance changes to PF introduced in 10.0. I
understand that PF is now able to take advantage of multiple CPUs / SMP
better because of finer grain locking. Does this also apply to using ALTQ
w/ HFSC? Can I expect packet forwarding performance to increase when
upgrading from 9.x to 10.x when using ALTQ? My understanding is that ALTQ
is still locked to a single core, or is this no longer true?

Also, I compile my igb driver with the LEGACY_IGB_TX to be able to use
igb(4) interfaces with ALTQ. Can I still expect to see a performance
increase with the PF changes in 10.x?

Thanks,
-Nick