On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Barney Cordoba wrote:
--- On Fri, 6/19/09, Jeff Roberson <jrober...@jroberson.net> wrote:
From: Jeff Roberson <jrober...@jroberson.net>
Subject: mbuf layout optimizations
To: n...@freebsd.org, curr...@freebsd.org
Date: Friday, June 19, 2009, 5:12 AM
http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/mbuf2.diff
Hello,
This is a call for testers and feedback on my mbuf layout
improvements. I'm trying to decide whether I will push to
have these included in 8.0. After reducing the scope
slightly from my last patch, I have not encountered any
problems. Kip Macy has also been using it for the past
few weeks without issue.
You should not expect any functional changes from this
patch. The goal is mostly to pave the way fors more
sensible mbuf handling in the future, although it does offer
a few performance benefits.
The only issue is that cxgb support requires another set of
patches from Kip. If anyone needs those I will prod
him to reply with that diff.
Thanks,
Jeff
I thought that the purpose of m_tags was to keep individual applications from having to
"patch" mbufs. Has that idea proven to be too
performance-challenged?
m_tags are unrelated to this diff. This addresses the fundamental memory
allocation mechanisms and layout of the mbuf. It reduces the amount of
book keeping necessary and makes reference counts more pervasive.
Thanks,
Jeff
Barney
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
