Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:15:35 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Fabien Thomas <fabient@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r280759 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <20150329011534.GH51048@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150328213403.GB74532@zxy.spb.ru> References: <201503271326.t2RDQxd3056112@svn.freebsd.org> <20150328083443.GV64665@FreeBSD.org> <20150328172313.GC51048@funkthat.com> <20150328181833.GX64665@FreeBSD.org> <20150328204333.GF51048@funkthat.com> <20150328213403.GB74532@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote this message on Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 00:34 +0300: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:43:33PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:23:13AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > J> Please read: > > > J> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6864 > > > > Anyways, are we really sending so many fragments that we are thrashing > > the cache line? I'd imagine a much lower hanging fruit is only provide > > ip_id when a non-atomic packet is being sent... > > In this case may be do range allocation of ID (per-CPU)? > For example, allocate 128 ID, not one ID? Do you mean what to do in the case of an atomic packet? Per RFC: In atomic datagrams, the IPv4 ID field has no meaning; thus, it can be set to an arbitrary value, i.e., the requirement for non-repeating IDs within the source address/destination address/protocol tuple is no longer required for atomic datagrams: You can just set it to 0, or any value we feel like. -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150329011534.GH51048>