From owner-freebsd-net  Sat Jun 29 17: 0:18 2002
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 8C9B537B400; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E9E2E43E09; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8])
          by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020630000012.ONM9178.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>;
          Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:00:12 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA81918;
	Sat, 29 Jun 2002 16:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 16:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>
Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Should we keep a cache of mbuf+cluster ready for use ?
In-Reply-To: <20020629192929.A58120@unixdaemons.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206291637430.81668-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org



I'd say yes.
you could let uma hold them for you
as it has support for 'constructors and destructors' for
types you ask it to manage. it will call the constructor whenever it needs
to create a new one and teh destructor when it gives that memeory
back to the system. In between the two operations, the
memory is type-stable, so you can have it 
allocate arbitrarily complicated objects.

I'm allocating thread structures, which have KVM mapped kernel stacks
hanging off them. So what UMA is handing me is not a simple mamory object
but a structure, which owns a vm object and anothermamory range
linked to it. (including the PCB). there is no reason uma cannot
and you a mbuf wit a cluster already on it..

Julian



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message