Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:38:01 -0500 From: Erik Osterholm <freebsd-lists-erik@erikosterholm.org> To: Max Laier <max.laier@tm.uka.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why isn't ALTQ in GENERIC? Message-ID: <20080626013801.GA83308@aleph.cepheid.org> In-Reply-To: <4c5bca29cfc1cdd3efa81ffb2f815675.squirrel@router> References: <20080624212639.GA41755@aleph.cepheid.org> <4c5bca29cfc1cdd3efa81ffb2f815675.squirrel@router>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:13:54AM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > Hi Erik, > > Am Di, 24.06.2008, 23:26, schrieb Erik Osterholm: > > Can anyone tell me if there are good reasons for explicitly leaving > > ALTQ out of the kernel? More specific to my circumstances, if I'm > > building kernels to be installed on every machine we deploy, is it > > worth building a separate kernel for ALTQ for those few boxes which > > will require it? > > > > Are there performance issues? Stability issues? Ultimately, I'm just > > surprised that it's not available in GENERIC if there isn't a good > > reason, but I can't find any documentation for that reason. > > Short answer: Historical reasons. > > Whole stroy: When ALTQ was added there were both performance and stability > concerns. For a long time we had a big #ifdef ALTQ in if_var.h to avoid > one additional check for if_queue enqueue opperations. These are now gone > and I personally don't see any issues that would prevent ALTQ from being > in GENERIC. However, it's unclear which disceplines to turn on by > default. I'd like to see ALTQ in GERNERIC, but I've been reluctant to > make the change on my own. If we can get a quorum here, I'll reconsider > it. Thanks for the explanation. I think that it would be nice to have in GENERIC, but my immediate concerns were for with the performance and stability. Thanks! Erikhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080626013801.GA83308>