From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Feb 20 21:29:58 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA07376
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from baygull.rtd.com (baygull.rtd.com [198.102.68.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA07371
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:29:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by baygull.rtd.com (8.6.9/8.6.9.1) id WAA14823; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:29:43 -0700
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Path: freefall.freebsd.org!owner-freebsd-hackers
From: nao@sbl.cl.nec.co.jp (Naoki Hamada)
Newsgroups: rtd.freebsd.hackers
Subject: Re: mbuf enhancement patch
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:46:44 +0900
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <199602210246.LAA18404@sirius.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: seagull.rtd.com
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>>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