From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 28 16:32:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 120B016A4CE; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9D143FAF; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:32:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 1661C5309; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:32:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id B45925308; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:32:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 0A41C33C8C; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:32:01 +0100 (CET) To: Tim Robbins References: <20031127070239.GA12950@wombat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:32:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20031127070239.GA12950@wombat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> (Tim Robbins's message of "Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:02:39 +1100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: ss X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK, RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.60 cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port of Niels Provos's file descriptor allocation code X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:32:14 -0000 Tim Robbins writes: > I've ported Niels Provos's file descriptor allocation code to FreeBSD > in case anyone wants to try it out & run some benchmarks. If the performa= nce > boost turns out to be worth the added complexity, I might clean it up a > bit and commit it. What exactly would be the point? If this is the OpenBSD fdalloc code, recent widely-publicized benchmarks have shown it to be inferior to ours. Perhaps you should concentrate on improving vm_map_find() and vm_map_findspace() performance instead? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no