Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:46:26 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] mbuma is in the tree Message-ID: <20040603094626.GA89838@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <200406021056.53005.sam@errno.com> References: <20040531215101.GA60299@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040602094940.GA80394@cell.sick.ru> <200406021056.53005.sam@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:56:52AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: S> > are you going to convert mbuf tag allocator to UMA? Now S> > tags are allocated with malloc(). AFAIK, tags are used heavily in pf, S> > and forthcoming ALTQ. Moving to UMA should affect their performance S> > positively. S> S> You probably meant you wanted to use a UMA zone. m_tag's can already be Exactly. What about using its own UMA zone for each m_tag consumer: pf, ALTQ, divert, vlan? Each module allocates its zone on startup, and later a reference to this zone is passed to m_tag_alloc(). S> allocated using this mechanism. I did it once for vlan tags but botched it S> (didn't handle module references properly) so backed it. But there's no S> reason someone cannot redo it or convert other heavily used fixed size tags S> to use a zone. Have you saved your efforts? May I look at them? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040603094626.GA89838>