From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug 25 10:38:20 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089C416A4DD;
	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:38:20 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9B743D45;
	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:38:19 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CE146DED;
	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:38:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060825101053.GU76666@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20060825113658.D40887@fledge.watson.org>
References: <E1GGWGA-000C6D-7d@hetzner.co.za>
	<20060825101053.GU76666@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org,
	yar@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: 802.1Q vlan performance.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:38:20 -0000


On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:

> As said before by Andrew. It consumes memory. And looks like a regression on 
> a system with small number of vlans.
>
> However, after your email I see that we need to document this option in 
> vlan(4) and encourage people to try it, when they are building a system with 
> a huge number of vlans.
>
> And here are some more performance thoughts on vlan(4) driver. When we are 
> processing an incoming VLAN tagged frame, we need either hash or the array 
> to determine which VLAN does this frame belong to. When we are sending a 
> VLAN frame outwards, we don't need this lookup. I've made some tests and it 
> looks like that the performance decrease that is observed between bare 
> Ethernet interface and vlan(4) interface, is mostly caused by the transmit 
> part. The packet is put twice on interface queues. I hope, this will be 
> optimized after Robert Watson finishes his if_start_mbuf work.

Ideally, it will also be possible to remove the m_tag allocation/free from the 
path once I'm done, which should help also.

Is it possible to make the hash table decision a run-time decision?

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge