https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143622
--- Comment #6 from Andrey V. Elsukov <a...@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #5) > (In reply to Max Laier from comment #2) > While rmlocks are relatively lightweight there is still a non-zero overhead. > For the purposes of a test the lock can simply be removed, and without it I > see ~2% more packets per second in pf than with it. > I've been thinking about replacing it with a CK_LIST and epoch based > cleanup, but I stopped working on it when I spotted that ipfw relies on the > lock. It should be possible to move that into ipfw, but I'm not sure the 2% > is worth that work. You can try to revert/rework this change and move IPFW_PF_RLOCK() back to the ipfw, and then you will be able to change pfil interface locking. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/netpfil/ipfw/ip_fw_private.h?r1=314716&r2=316461 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
