From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 9 07:30:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA15984 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:30:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from heathers.stdio.com (heathers.stdio.com [199.89.192.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA15967 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:30:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lile@stdio.com) Received: from localhost (lile@localhost) by heathers.stdio.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA29753; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lile@heathers.stdio.com) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Larry S. Lile" To: David Greenman cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf question In-Reply-To: <199811091501.HAA04321@root.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, David Greenman wrote: > >Are mbufs allocated below the 16M area? > > > >If they are, is it likely to change? > > > >Why? Because I am trying to eliminate bcopy's and mallocs in my > >token-ring driver to gain a little more performance. > > They're allocated throughout the machine's physical address space. I was afraid of that, so I should just make new buffers and copy when I need DMA'able memory. Otherwise I can just use the mbuf's directly. Thanks! Larry Lile lile@stdio.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message