From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 17 11:04:22 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB2B5C5; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:04:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CA4220C; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local ([12.157.112.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s2HB4EpS081797 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:04:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <5326D6A8.8050005@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:04:08 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rui Paulo , Ian Lepore Subject: Re: mbuf question References: <53230214.7010501@gmail.com> <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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Hackers , Hooman Fazaeli X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:04:22 -0000 On 3/15/14, 9:31 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 15 Mar 2014, at 16:13, Ian Lepore 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" >