Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:45:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com> Cc: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, araujo@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate Message-ID: <20080325094400.I6905@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <ea7b9c170803250203l6e3769ablcba65df6c1f5a4b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <slrnfud9lu.1rus.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net> <47E79636.1000909@FreeBSD.org> <47E7EAA8.7020101@elischer.org> <ea7b9c170803250203l6e3769ablcba65df6c1f5a4b6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: >> 3/ possibly keeping per CPU stats.. > > This probably is the trickest part, not difficult for non-fastforward case. > But if fastforward is enabled, I could only imagine full cross-cpu states > duplication. FWIW, there is decreasing difference between IP fast forwarding and regular IP processing in FreeBSD 7.x, as we perform direct dispatch by default, so it's not just the fast forward case where full input parallelism is possible for the firewall, and parallel firewall processing has occurred for output since 5.3. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080325094400.I6905>