From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Feb 20 18:45:16 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA26698
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from research.gate.nec.co.jp (research.gate.nec.co.jp [202.32.8.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA26691
          Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbl-gw.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp by research.gate.nec.co.jp (8.7.3+2.6Wbeta5/950912) with ESMTP id LAA19443; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:45:03 +0900 (JST)
Received: from sirius.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp by sbl-gw.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp (8.7.3/3.3W6) with SMTP
	id LAA18368; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:44:50 +0900 (JST)
Received: by sirius.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp (8.6.9/3.3W6) with UUCP
	id LAA18404; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:46:44 +0900
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:46:44 +0900
From: Naoki Hamada <nao@sbl.cl.nec.co.jp>
Message-Id: <199602210246.LAA18404@sirius.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp>
References: <199602210209.SAA04797@Root.COM>
To: davidg@Root.COM
CC: andreas@knobel.gun.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: David Greenman's message of "Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:09:45 -0800"
	     <199602210209.SAA04797@Root.COM>
Subject: Re: mbuf enhancement patch
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>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.

The old 3c509 has 2k bytes RX FIFO. Is this large enough?

-nao