Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:34:45 +0200 From: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some performance measurements on the FreeBSD network stack Message-ID: <CAHM0Q_M4wcEiWGkjWxE1OjLeziQN0vM%2B4_EYS_WComZ6=j5xhA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120419204622.GA94904@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <20120419133018.GA91364@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4F907011.9080602@freebsd.org> <20120419204622.GA94904@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> This is indeed a big problem. =A0I'm working (rough edges remain) on >> changing the routing table locking to an rmlock (read-mostly) which > This only helps if your flows aren't hitting the same rtentry. Otherwise you still convoy on the lock for the rtentry itself to increment and decrement the rtentry's reference count. > i was wondering, is there a way (and/or any advantage) to use the > fastforward code to look up the route for locally sourced packets ? > If the number of peers is bounded then you can use the flowtable. Max PPS is much higher bypassing routing lookup. However, it doesn't scale to arbitrary flow numbers. -Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHM0Q_M4wcEiWGkjWxE1OjLeziQN0vM%2B4_EYS_WComZ6=j5xhA>