From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Sep 29 21:16:01 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4E016A40F
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:16:01 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: from niwun.pair.com (niwun.pair.com [209.68.2.70])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6355143D4C
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:16:00 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: (qmail 24239 invoked by uid 3193); 29 Sep 2006 21:15:59 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1)
	by localhost with SMTP; 29 Sep 2006 21:15:59 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
X-X-Sender: silby@niwun.pair.com
To: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609291712290.66811@niwun.pair.com>
References: <451C4850.5030302@freebsd.org>
	<Pine.BSF.4.58.0609281928020.20971@niwun.pair.com>
	<451D884F.1030807@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org,
	Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, gallatin@cs.duke.edu
Subject: Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:16:01 -0000


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Randall Stewart wrote:

> Hmm.. I would think 512b and 1K will not show any
> improvement.. since they would probably end up either
> in an mbuf chain.. or a single 2k (or maybe 4k) cluster..

I know, I just want to make sure that it doesn't somehow cause performance
loss for those cases!

> In fact I have always thought we should:
>
> a) have no data portion in an mbuf.. just pointers i.e. always
>     an EXT
>
> b) Have a 256/512 and 1k cluster too..

Implement and benchmark it. :)

Mike "Silby" Silbersack