Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 00:37:03 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf header bloat ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211232306410.28833-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <15840.8629.324788.887872@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > As you eloquently state, there are a number of tradeoffs involved. On > a 64-bit platform, 99% of users are paying 40 bytes/pkt for something > that they will never use. On x86, 99.99% of users are paying 20 > bytes/pkt for a feature they will never use. At least a signifigant > fraction of nics make use of csum offloading (xl, ti, bge, em, myri). the downside to the TAG stuff is that you need to allocate a separate tag storage, and that is a malloc.. which has certain characteristics vs the mbuf allocator. We have a special allocator for mbufs for a reason. (I'm not sure how many of the original reasons still apply). so it's worth looking at whether malloc is a suitable method of allocating all that stuff before we take it out of the mbuf. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211232306410.28833-100000>