From owner-freebsd-net Thu Mar 21 20:44:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from angelica.unixdaemons.com (angelica.unixdaemons.com [209.148.64.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0481237B400 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from angelica.unixdaemons.com (bmilekic@localhost.unixdaemons.com [127.0.0.1]) by angelica.unixdaemons.com (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g2M4isJX097070; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:44:54 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: angelica.unixdaemons.com: Host bmilekic@localhost.unixdaemons.com [127.0.0.1] claimed to be angelica.unixdaemons.com Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by angelica.unixdaemons.com (8.12.2/8.12.1/Submit) id g2M4irgY097069; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:44:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:44:53 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic To: Jeff Roberson Cc: Mike Silbersack , net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets. Message-ID: <20020321234453.A96524@unixdaemons.com> References: <20020322025429.K3059-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20020321233416.B41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020321233416.B41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>; from jroberson@chesapeake.net on Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:35:52PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:35:52PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > There's one big target, though: mbufs. I know that Bosko put a lot of > > work into his new mbuf allocator, but if you could find a way to merge > > mbufs into the slab allocator the benefits would be huge. Have you > > discussed doing this with Bosko yet? > > > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack > > > > We have talked about it quite a bit. I'd love to remove the hard limit on > mbufs. I may do this soon, but I have other uma related work that will > probably come before it. I'm not so sure I like this idea. What would be better (and perhaps what you meant) is: "be able to expand the size of the mbuf allocation `pool' at runtime." In any case, we should not jump to quick conclusions with all data structures right away. Instead, I propose that we first glue-in mbuf allocations to UMA (not too difficult, given that UMA provides an allocation routine stub). If this is done properly [without macro-performance loss] then it should be rather trivial to bring in new functionality. > Jeff -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@unixdaemons.com bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message