Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:04:08 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>, Hooman Fazaeli <hoomanfazaeli@gmail.com> Subject: Re: mbuf question Message-ID: <5326D6A8.8050005@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <BEA4D691-6405-4D5B-B437-DAEB655D45EF@FreeBSD.org> References: <53230214.7010501@gmail.com> <BBAFAB2A-F496-46A2-8FE0-224BE562EAA7@FreeBSD.org> <532405B7.2020007@gmail.com> <96659837-1FDC-421D-A339-87104A0075C7@FreeBSD.org> <5324D669.804@gmail.com> <5324DAC0.9020508@gmail.com> <1394925228.1149.558.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <BEA4D691-6405-4D5B-B437-DAEB655D45EF@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/15/14, 9:31 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 15 Mar 2014, at 16:13, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> How about an optimization that puts tags in that area when it's >> available to avoid the allocation overhead? I don't know much about the >> network code, so maybe that's not a sensible idea. > The problem with mbuf tags is that they are not fixed size, so they can't easily use UMA (although they use malloc which is backed by UMA, but the performance is lower). If tags are not an option, I suppose Hooman could use fields from struct pkthdr, but this might come with risks if the code is not in the tree. why not do what ipfw does? > > -- > Rui Paulo > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5326D6A8.8050005>