From owner-freebsd-net Thu Aug 3 12: 3:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F23337B528 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:03:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA42267; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:02:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <200008031902.MAA42267@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: Max data queued for UDP In-Reply-To: <200008030354.XAA21343@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from Garrett Wollman at "Aug 2, 2000 11:54:06 pm" To: Garrett Wollman Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Cc: jayanth , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Garrett Wollman writes: > 2) In m_pullup(), automatically copy the entire packet out of the > cluster if it would fit, and free the cluster. This will cost some, > but I think it's a win because the IP stack will call m_pullup almost > immediately upon receiving a packet, we're already committed to doing > a copy, and the current implementation of m_pullup will then allocate > an extra mbuf. (This would bite for multicast routing, however. The > way to fix that is to keep m_pullup out of the multicast routing code > path.) That sounds like a cool idea.. What is special about multicast that would be particularly problematic? -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message