Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:32:06 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_gif.c Message-ID: <20041209193206.GA65156@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <41B8709C.329DD195@freebsd.org> References: <200412061902.iB6J2hJ6000543@repoman.freebsd.org> <x7fz2i7la1.wl%suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp> <41B58367.EB32CF1@freebsd.org> <20041207150937.GD1336@ip.net.ua> <41B8709C.329DD195@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:34:52PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >=20 > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:18:15AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > I hope to remove the ability to have pointers into the routing table > > > before 6.0 release. > > > > > This would make my WIP OBE, which is nice. But how are you going to > > compensate for the performance loss of *not* having cached routes? >=20 > Up to a couple of hundred kpps it doesn't matter and the only place > where we have cached routes is in the various IP[46] tunnels. The > caching makes locking of the routing table more complex and expensive. > Once that can be simplified there is a significant amount of lookup > cost going away. >=20 Ah right, I keep forgetting you already killed the ip_forward() cached route. ;) Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBuKg2qRfpzJluFF4RAv18AJ9ERjOSCPUhG6MKwjCCNbu5MrrNvACeL7n/ L+1VS0/CSxlQwMUBS/yvs8Q= =7bAr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041209193206.GA65156>