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 <net@FreeBSD.ORG>; 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 <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>
To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, 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: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
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