24.11.2010 13:18, Li, Qing пишет:
I am the main author of this paper you referenced in your email.
Hi! I know that you also worked on this. Kip Macy mention because I
found his statement regarding this issue.
The main discussion and focus of my paper was on the design and work done to
separate L2 and L3 for both IPv4 and IPv6 to facilitate the elimination of
GIANT lock in the networking subsystem, thus achieving high parallelism.
This redesign of separately managing L2 ARP/ND6 and L3 routing tables already
show performance gain on multicore systems.
The flow-table enhancement is just one other component, described towards the
end of the paper. Yes, It is experimental and was discussed as such in the
paper as well as on the mailing list.
Ie You also confirms that this feature is still experimental?
I did not know flow-table feature was enabled by default. I wouldn't have done
so myself.
Kip Macy added it to the generic kernel of head 2009-06-14 (vers. 1.526).
And it so happened that when he appeared RELENG_8 she moved into the
stable branch.
So help me understand you better: are you complaining about the general L2/L3
separation work, or you are angry about the flow-table enhancement in
particular?
cheers,
-- Qing
I understand the importance and necessity of the features.
I'll be glad when it will actually carry out what should be.
But in the current situation, this feature should not be enabled by
default in the generic kernel of the stable branch.
Best regards,
Andrey Groshev.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
