From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Oct 31 14:20:15 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from field.videotron.net (field.videotron.net [205.151.222.108]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9796037B479 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:20:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from modemcable213.3-201-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.201.3.213]) by field.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0G3B004N3FDP3C@field.videotron.net> for freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:20:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:24:48 -0500 (EST) From: Bosko Milekic Subject: Re: MP: per-CPU mbuf allocation lists In-reply-to: <200010310731.e9V7VUJ16831@earth.backplane.com> X-Sender: bmilekic@jehovah.technokratis.com To: Matt Dillon Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Matt Dillon wrote: > For example, to reap most of the benefit we could simply implement a > 5-10 slot 'quick cache' (also known as a working-set cache) in > MALLOC()/FREE() and zalloc[i]()/zfree(). It is not necessary to keep > big per-cpu pools. With small per-cpu pools and hystersis we reap most > of the benefits but don't have to deal with any of the garbage collection > or balancing issues. After seeing the hell the Linux folks are going > through, I'd much prefer to avoid having to deal with balancing. > > -Matt So, anyone planning to do some MALLOC() optimizing? :-) Cheers, Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message