From owner-freebsd-current Tue Feb 20 18:09:44 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA24941 for current-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:09:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA24934 Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:09:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA04797; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:09:45 -0800 Message-Id: <199602210209.SAA04797@Root.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Naoki Hamada cc: andreas@knobel.gun.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mbuf enhancement patch In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Feb 1996 09:58:33 +0900." <199602210058.JAA17442@sirius.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:09:45 -0800 Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> We once had changes similar to the ones you've provided, except we had it >>so that the buffers over a certain threshold were returned back to malloc. The >>problem with this was that the malloc type was lost in the process and this >>messed up the malloc-type accounting (which eventually leads to malloc >>failures). > >I found the ep driver always keeps some mbuf's in its pool. Is this >because mbuf allocation is too expensive for boards which equip small >receive buffer? If this is the case, some improvement (not mine :-) is >desirable. I think that's what the author thought, but the FIFO on the 3c509 should be sufficiently large enough to not need the extra 1% of speed that having the private pool gets you. Our malloc implementation is quite efficient, actually. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project