Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 13:46:34 +0100 From: root <root@spase.nl> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <199602221246.NAA11201@mercurius.spase.nl>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From freefall.freebsd.org!owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 21 11:21:17 1996 remote from sun4nl
Received: from ra.dkuug.dk by sun4nl.NL.net with SMTP
id AA01460 (5.65b/CWI-3.3); Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:08:12 +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 JAA05023; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 09:51:54 +0100
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA07503
Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:31:54 -0800 (PST)
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 <hackers@freebsd.org>; 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602221246.NAA11201>