From owner-freebsd-net Sat Jun 29 20:19:36 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 40CCE37B400 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 20:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (66-191-112-47.mad.wi.charter.com [66.191.112.47]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD7A43E1D for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 20:19:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jlemon@flugsvamp.com) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5U3JMg48882; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:19:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:19:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Jonathan Lemon Message-Id: <200206300319.g5U3JMg48882@prism.flugsvamp.com> To: bmilekic@unixdaemons.com, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should we keep a cache of mbuf+cluster ready for use ? X-Newsgroups: local.mail.freebsd-net In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Cc: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article you write: > >On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 03:46:31PM -0700, Jeffrey Hsu wrote: >> So, what you want is something like a >> MGETHCL(m, how, type) >> MHCLFREE(m) >> interface which first looks in a combined freelist before the individual >> mbuf and cluster freelists. I think it's a good idea. > > I would prefer to see an interface that just grabs both a cluster and > an mbuf from their respective per-CPU caches (in -CURRENT) while only > grabbing the lock once, if at all this is that important to you. [*] I'd agree with bosko. I don't think that a per-softc pool of mbuf+clusters is the way to go, this should be the function of the uma allocator. I'm agnostic as to whether a preconstructed mbuf+cluster pool is a useful construct or not. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message