Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:19:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: bmilekic@unixdaemons.com, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should we keep a cache of mbuf+cluster ready for use ? Message-ID: <200206300319.g5U3JMg48882@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <local.mail.freebsd-net/20020629190844.A54115@unixdaemons.com> References: <local.mail.freebsd-net/20020629145303.A75543@iguana.icir.org> <local.mail.freebsd-net/0GYH00JJCOL3HO@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <local.mail.freebsd-net/20020629190844.A54115@unixdaemons.com> you write: > >On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 03:46:31PM -0700, Jeffrey Hsu wrote: >> So, what you want is something like a >> MGETHCL(m, how, type) >> MHCLFREE(m) >> interface which first looks in a combined freelist before the individual >> mbuf and cluster freelists. I think it's a good idea. > > I would prefer to see an interface that just grabs both a cluster and > an mbuf from their respective per-CPU caches (in -CURRENT) while only > grabbing the lock once, if at all this is that important to you. [*] I'd agree with bosko. I don't think that a per-softc pool of mbuf+clusters is the way to go, this should be the function of the uma allocator. I'm agnostic as to whether a preconstructed mbuf+cluster pool is a useful construct or not. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200206300319.g5U3JMg48882>