From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 20 21:31:51 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA07488 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:31:51 -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 VAA07483 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:31:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from news@localhost) by baygull.rtd.com (8.6.9/8.6.9.1) id WAA14915; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:31:36 -0700 To: hackers@freebsd.org Path: freefall.freebsd.org!owner-freebsd-hackers From: davidg@Root.COM (David Greenman) Newsgroups: rtd.freebsd.hackers Subject: Re: mbuf enhancement patch Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:09:45 -0800 Lines: 19 Message-ID: <199602210209.SAA04797@Root.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: seagull.rtd.com Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> We once had changes similar to the ones you've provided, except we had it >>so that the buffers over a certain threshold were returned back to malloc. The >>problem with this was that the malloc type was lost in the process and this >>messed up the malloc-type accounting (which eventually leads to malloc >>failures). > >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. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project