* Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010616 00:56] wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> > > > Here are some performance results. Keep in mind that we're still under
> > > > Giant.
> > > >
> > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bmilekic/code/mb_alloc/results.html
> > >
> > > Just for comparision, 6-way results are at:
> > >
> > > http://www.flugsvamp.com/~jlemon/fbsd/netpipe/
> >
> > Are you sure those aren't inverted? (i.e. swap(present, mb_alloc)?)
> >
> > In any case, the mb_alloc code you used still has the malloc() and
> > free() calls during cluster allocation and freeing and still, it looks to
> > me as very comparable nonetheless.
>
> I've updated the page with results from running Bosko's latest
> code (without the malloc/free calls). The results are at the
> above URL. The performance of the new allocator on this benchmark
> comes out ahead of the old one.
It would be better if we could allocate/free clusters+mbufs+refcounts
under a single lock. It would simplify the API and save a boatload
of cycles and i-cache by avoiding the mutex operations.
Not that I object to the current code, I'm just wondering when this
important optimization is going to be made, or that the interface
will settle down enough so that I can get started on it.
--
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
