Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 13:46:23 +0100 From: root <root@spase.nl> To: hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <199602221246.NAA11142@mercurius.spase.nl>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From freefall.freebsd.org!owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 21 10:30:38 1996 remote from sun4nl
Received: from ra.dkuug.dk by sun4nl.NL.net with SMTP
id AA26396 (5.65b/CWI-3.3); Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:30:38 +0100
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [192.216.222.4]) by ra.dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05066; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 09:56:28 +0100
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA08177
Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:39:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA08161
for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:39:31 -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 VAA08156
for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by baygull.rtd.com (8.6.9/8.6.9.1) id WAA14972; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:39:15 -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 18:59:13 -0800
Lines: 21
Message-Id: <199602210259.SAA04978@Root.COM>
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?
Yes, but a bit tight. If the driver were properly written, large packets
would be put in mbuf clusters which are allocated out of a private pool and
should be as fast as the pool that the driver is maintaining. I haven't looked
at the driver source in any detail...I've instead decided to rewrite it at
some point in the future, but haven't had the time + enough interest yet.
-DG
David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602221246.NAA11142>