> >From previous tests, the difference between flowtable and >routing table was small with a single process (about 5% or 50ns >in the total packet processing time, if i remember well), >but there was a large gain with multiple concurrent processes. >
Yes, that sounds about right when we did the tests a long while ago. > > Removing flowtable increases the cost in ip_output() > (obviously) but also in ether_output() (because the > route does not have a lle entry so you need to call > arpresolve on each packet). > Yup. > > So in revising the route lookup i believe it would be good > if we could also get at once most of the info that > ether_output() is computing again and again. > Well, the routing table no longer maintains any lle info, so there isn't much to copy out the rtentry at the completion of route lookup. If I understood you correctly, you do believe there is a lot of value in Flowtable caching concept, but you are not suggesting we reverting back to having the routing table maintain L2 entries, are you ? --Qing _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
