Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:50:05 -0400 From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@netflix.com> Cc: freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Subject: Re: in_broadcast() called for almost every packet in ip_output() Message-ID: <CAFMmRNxjpZMVbRLv-xqYNTXjCUh6=oDPfqK_cM47i64bRs51eA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <559f1d0e-9d35-f458-bff5-b69a03297cf0@netflix.com> References: <CAFMmRNx%2Bx9GNDgDHO5oyoj-S%2BCK9bRvJhpNNFf3%2BPk0p2SQeSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADLQ3sLyytm0HMsSChhWD108t6iPpquXH2E2R7Wc42FpaAP1Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMmRNyi1-K%2BKX6bY2bx7_hiq2PDPJa-QJatBf0QdtriGnJ5fw@mail.gmail.com> <559f1d0e-9d35-f458-bff5-b69a03297cf0@netflix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@netflix.com> wrote: > Caching sounds reasonable, but.. won't the lock still add overhead > to paths like unconnected udp and packet forwarding? > Forwarded packets will never be broadcast, so checking for a broadcast address would just be redundant. Unconnected UDP would get overhead, but I'm honestly not sure how many people care about the performance of unconnected UDP.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMmRNxjpZMVbRLv-xqYNTXjCUh6=oDPfqK_cM47i64bRs51eA>