From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 7 15:48:35 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24DF337 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 15:48:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.69.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31294202 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 15:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r27FmSE6068638; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:48:28 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r27FmSNn068637; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:48:28 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:48:28 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: "O. Hartmann" Subject: Re: IPFW in CURRENT: SMP-friendly? Message-ID: <20130307154828.GG48089@FreeBSD.org> References: <51388897.4080102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51388897.4080102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Current FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:48:35 -0000 On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:31:19PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: O> There is work going on to move the OpenBSD pf(1) towards a more SMP O> friendly entity - this reduces CPU load and should raise throughput. O> O> Are there any plans for FreeBSD "native" packet filter IPFW2 to gain the O> same? Or, to ask it differently, IS ipfw(1), the freeBSD native O> packetfilter, already SMP friendly and so better suited for multicore O> architectures? Yes, it is already not under a single lock for a long time. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.