rwatson added a comment. np@'s comments are good ones, both with respect to ACK clocking and BPF -- but this will also affect local firewalls that do state tracking and/or transformation, and likewise will run into problems.
Given this discussion, I'm increasingly convinced that this is Not A Good Idea In Its Current Form -- far more thought is required about how we might want to handle this. I would recommend we set aside time at a BSDCan devsummit session to talk about the implications of VLRO for the stack as a whole. Given our default direct-dispatch input configuration, presumably much of the benefit from VLRO comes from reducing the number of tcpcb lookups, and a bit more comes from avoiding reassembly costs. I do wonder if we might choose to present VLRO in a different way: rather than as a single, very large datagram, but instead as a series of datagrams that the lower layer promises are for the same TCP connection, and sequential, allowing a single lookup and reassembly avoidance, but avoiding diverging from the current assumption that mbuf chains correspond to a single IP datagram that meets its invariant properties. We could easily assert that the IP addresses match and that the segments are sequential, allowing us to catch bugs while making strong assumptions. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1761 To: hselasky, rmacklem, rrs, glebius, gnn, emaste, imp, adrian, bz, rwatson, lstewart Cc: np, freebsd-net _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
