Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:46:44 +0900 From: Naoki Hamada <nao@sbl.cl.nec.co.jp> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: andreas@knobel.gun.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mbuf enhancement patch Message-ID: <199602210246.LAA18404@sirius.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp> In-Reply-To: David Greenman's message of "Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:09:45 -0800" <199602210209.SAA04797@Root.COM> References: <199602210209.SAA04797@Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>I found the ep driver always keeps some mbuf's in its pool. Is this >>because mbuf allocation is too expensive for boards which equip small >>receive buffer? If this is the case, some improvement (not mine :-) is >>desirable. > > I think that's what the author thought, but the FIFO on the 3c509 should be >sufficiently large enough to not need the extra 1% of speed that having the >private pool gets you. Our malloc implementation is quite efficient, actually. The old 3c509 has 2k bytes RX FIFO. Is this large enough? -nao
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602210246.LAA18404>