From owner-freebsd-net Sun Sep 10 2:53:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from urban.iinet.net.au (urban.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.231]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A5537B423; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from muzak.iinet.net.au (muzak.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.237]) by urban.iinet.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26042; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:53:29 +0800 Received: from jules.elischer.org (reggae-34-171.nv.iinet.net.au [203.59.167.171]) by muzak.iinet.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA24780; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:53:26 +0800 Message-ID: <39BB5A14.167EB0E7@elischer.org> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:53:24 -0700 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bosko Milekic Cc: current@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf system with mutexes References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bosko Milekic wrote: > > For those interested, > > http://www.technokratis.com/code/mbuf/mbuf_mtx.patch Assuming we have a "my processor" index somewhere, how much work would it take to give each processor a separate cache of mbufs? Also, I've often wondered if the 'custer' special code might more simply be implemented by puting pointers to cluster methods in the mbuf external method pointers and removing all the special case tests to see if it's a cluster. In that case there would be just 2 cases: non-external and external, where 'cluster mbufs' are only a presupplied external type. -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000 ---> X_.---._/ presently in: Perth v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message