Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:23:05 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: small tun(4) improvement Message-ID: <20041014202305.GA50360@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <416EBF0A.CB1C0366@networx.ch> References: <20041014174225.GB49508@cell.sick.ru> <416EBF0A.CB1C0366@networx.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:01:46PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> > any objections about commiting this improvement to tun(4)? A> > In my ng_device I have a similar function ngdwrite(), which was A> > cut-n-pasted from tunwrite(). And my tests with a patched ng_device have A> > shown 30% speedup on large writes. I don't think it will help tun(4) A> > to be a much faster, since tunwrite() isn't a bottleneck, but I think A> > it is worth considering. The patch was tested on a production PPPoE access A> > concentrator (RELENG_4 however). A> A> Could you check tap(4) as well? You can do the same optimization there A> as well (IIRC). Yes, you are right. We are going to have triple cut'n'paste: if_tun.c, ng_device.c, if_tap.c. What about m_uiocopy()? The question is where can we put this function? P.S. We already have md_get_uio() in libmchain. But it doesn't do exactly same thing. And libmchain does not support Big Endians, so we probably don't want to make tun and tap depend on libmchain. P.P.S. BTW, ng_eiface+ng_device is going to supersede tap(4), same way as ng_iface+ng_device is going to supersede tun(4). :) -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041014202305.GA50360>