Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:38:01 -0500 From: Erik Osterholm <freebsd-lists-erik@erikosterholm.org> To: Max Laier <max.laier@tm.uka.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why isn't ALTQ in GENERIC? Message-ID: <20080626013801.GA83308@aleph.cepheid.org> In-Reply-To: <4c5bca29cfc1cdd3efa81ffb2f815675.squirrel@router> References: <20080624212639.GA41755@aleph.cepheid.org> <4c5bca29cfc1cdd3efa81ffb2f815675.squirrel@router>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:13:54AM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > Hi Erik, > > Am Di, 24.06.2008, 23:26, schrieb Erik Osterholm: > > Can anyone tell me if there are good reasons for explicitly leaving > > ALTQ out of the kernel? More specific to my circumstances, if I'm > > building kernels to be installed on every machine we deploy, is it > > worth building a separate kernel for ALTQ for those few boxes which > > will require it? > > > > Are there performance issues? Stability issues? Ultimately, I'm just > > surprised that it's not available in GENERIC if there isn't a good > > reason, but I can't find any documentation for that reason. > > Short answer: Historical reasons. > > Whole stroy: When ALTQ was added there were both performance and stability > concerns. For a long time we had a big #ifdef ALTQ in if_var.h to avoid > one additional check for if_queue enqueue opperations. These are now gone > and I personally don't see any issues that would prevent ALTQ from being > in GENERIC. However, it's unclear which disceplines to turn on by > default. I'd like to see ALTQ in GERNERIC, but I've been reluctant to > make the change on my own. If we can get a quorum here, I'll reconsider > it. Thanks for the explanation. I think that it would be nice to have in GENERIC, but my immediate concerns were for with the performance and stability. Thanks! Erik
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080626013801.GA83308>