[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why isn't ALTQ in GENERIC?
- To: Max Laier <max_(_dot_)_laier_(_at_)_tm_(_dot_)_uka_(_dot_)_de>
- Subject: Re: Why isn't ALTQ in GENERIC?
- From: Erik Osterholm <freebsd-lists-erik_(_at_)_erikosterholm_(_dot_)_org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:38:01 -0500
- Cc: freebsd-net_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org
- Mail-followup-to: Erik Osterholm <freebsd-lists-erik_(_at_)_erikosterholm_(_dot_)_org>, Max Laier <max_(_dot_)_laier_(_at_)_tm_(_dot_)_uka_(_dot_)_de>, freebsd-net_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org
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
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
freebsd-net_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"