Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote this message on Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 00:34 +0300: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:43:33PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:23:13AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > J> Please read: > > > J> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6864 > > > > Anyways, are we really sending so many fragments that we are thrashing > > the cache line? I'd imagine a much lower hanging fruit is only provide > > ip_id when a non-atomic packet is being sent... > > In this case may be do range allocation of ID (per-CPU)? > For example, allocate 128 ID, not one ID?
Do you mean what to do in the case of an atomic packet? Per RFC: In atomic datagrams, the IPv4 ID field has no meaning; thus, it can be set to an arbitrary value, i.e., the requirement for non-repeating IDs within the source address/destination address/protocol tuple is no longer required for atomic datagrams: You can just set it to 0, or any value we feel like. -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not." _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"